text:
# Vacuum String Field Theory with B field

## 1 Introduction

Witten’s String Field Theory (SFT),  in the presence of a constant background $`B`$ field has been studied in ref.  and  in the field theory limit (see also the final considerations of ). In this limit the SFT $``$ product factorizes into the ordinary Witten $``$ product and the Moyal product. More generally, it was proven by  that, when a $`B`$ field is switched on, the kinetic term of the SFT action remains unchanged while the three string vertex changes, being multiplied by a (cyclically invariant) noncommutative phase factor (see ). Starting from this result, in  we began the exploration of the effects of a $`B`$ field in a nonperturbative regime of Vacuum String Field Theory (VSFT). In particular we were able to show that exact solutions can be written down for tachyonic lumps much in the same way as one finds analogous solutions without $`B`$ field.

In this paper we continue the analysis started in  and show that many results previously obtained in the matter sector of VSFT without $`B`$ field (see ref.\[8-27\]) can be generalized to the VSFT with $`B`$ field. The message we would like to convey in this paper is that the introduction of a constant background $`B`$ field is not a terrible embarrassment in developing SFT. On the other hand, it may turn out to be a useful device. In VSFT there arise several singularities. We have good reasons to believe that the well–known smoothing out effects of a $`B`$ field may help in taming some of them. At the end of this paper we present an example of such beneficial effects due to the $`B`$ field.

The paper is organized as follows. In the next section we collect a series of previously obtained results, which we need in the sequel of this paper. In section 3 we present a proof that $`=1`$, where $``$ is the ratio introduced in . This implies that the ratio of tensions between the D25–brane and the D23–dimensional tachyonic lump is as conjectured in . In section 4 we show that we can extend without much pain to the case of nonvanishing $`B`$ field a series of results which were previously derived in the case $`B=0`$. In section 5 we analyze the effect of the $`B`$ field on some of the VSFT singularities. We prove that the presence of a $`B`$ field removes the singularity of the tachyonic lumps. For instance we find the GMS solitons, , and we show that the singular geometry of the sliver, found in , is smoothed out by the $`B`$ field in the lump solutions. In particular we show that the string midpoint is not confined anymore to the hyperplane of vanishing transverse dimensions.

## 2 Summary of previous results

Vacuum String Field Theory (VSFT) was defined in . It is conjectured to represent SFT on the stable vacuum of Witten’s SFT. The VSFT action has the same form as Witten’s SFT action with the BRST operator $`Q`$ replaced by a new one, usually denoted $`𝒬`$, which has the characteristics of being universal. As a matter of fact in , see also  and , an explicit representation of $`𝒬`$ has been proposed, purely in terms of ghost fields. Now, the equation of motion of VSFT is

$`𝒬\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (1)
One looks for nonperturbative solutions in the form

$`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }_m\mathrm{\Psi }_g`$ (2)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_g`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_m`$ depend purely on ghost and matter degrees of freedom, respectively. Then eq.(1) splits into

$`𝒬\mathrm{\Psi }_g`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_g\mathrm{\Psi }_g`$ (3)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_m`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_m\mathrm{\Psi }_m`$ (4)
Eq.(3) will not be involved in our analysis since ghosts are unaffected by the presence of a $`B`$ field. Therefore we will concentrate on solutions of (4).

The value of the action for such solutions is given by

$`𝒮(\mathrm{\Psi })=𝒦\mathrm{\Psi }_m|\mathrm{\Psi }_m`$ (5)
where $`𝒦`$ contains the ghost contribution. As shown in , $`𝒦`$ is infinite unless it is suitably regularized. Nevertheless, as argued in  a coupled solution of (3) and (4), even if it is naively singular, is nevertheless a representative of the corresponding class of smooth solutions.

In  we found solutions of eq.(4) when a constant $`B`$ field is turned on along some space directions. We consider here only the simplest $`B`$ field configuration, i.e. when $`B`$ is nonvanishing in the two space directions, say the $`24`$–th and $`25`$–th ones (see  for generalizations). Let us denote these directions with the Lorentz indices $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. Then, as is well–known , in these two direction we have a new effective metric $`G_{\alpha \beta }`$, the open string metric, as well as an effective antisymmetric parameter $`\theta _{\alpha \beta }`$. If we set

$`B_{\alpha \beta }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& B\\ B& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (6)
they take the explicit form

$`G_{\alpha \beta }=\sqrt{\mathrm{DetG}}\delta _{\alpha \beta },\theta ^{\alpha \beta }=(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2Bϵ^{\alpha \beta },\mathrm{DetG}=\left(1+(2\pi B)^2\right)^2,`$ (7)
where $`ϵ^{\alpha \beta }`$ is the $`2\times 2`$ antisymmetric symbol with $`ϵ^1{}_{2}{}^{}=1`$ (notice the slight change of conventions with respect to ).

The presence of the $`B`$ field modifies the three–string vertex only in the 24-th and 25-th direction, which, in view of the D–brane interpretation, we call the transverse ones. After turning on the $`B`$–field the three–string vertex becomes

$`|V_3^{}=|V_{3,}^{}|V_{3,}`$ (8)
$`|V_{3,}`$ is the same as in the ordinary case (without $`B`$ field), while

$`|V_{3,}^{}=K_2e^E^{}|\stackrel{~}{0}_{123}`$ (9)
with

$`K_2={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2\pi b^3}}{A^2(4a^2+3)}}(\mathrm{Det}G)^{1/4},`$ (10)
$`E^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{r,s=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{M,N0}{}}a_M^{(r)\alpha }𝒱_{\alpha \beta ,MN}^{rs}a_N^{(s)\beta }`$ (11)
We have introduced the indices $`M=\{0,m\},N=\{0,n\}`$ and the vacuum $`|\stackrel{~}{0}=|0|\mathrm{\Omega }_{b,\theta }`$, where $`|\mathrm{\Omega }_{b,\theta }`$ is the vacuum with respect to the oscillators

$`a_0^{(r)\alpha }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{b}\widehat{p}^{(r)\alpha }i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{b}}}\widehat{x}^{(r)\alpha },a_0^{(r)\alpha }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{b}\widehat{p}^{(r)\alpha }+i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{b}}}\widehat{x}^{(r)\alpha },`$ (12)
where $`\widehat{p}^{(r)\alpha },\widehat{x}^{(r)\alpha }`$ are the zero momentum and position operator of the $`r`$–th string; i.e. $`a_0^\alpha |\mathrm{\Omega }_{b,\theta }=0`$. It is understood that $`p^{(r)\alpha }=G^{\alpha \beta }p_\beta ^{(r)}`$, and

$`[a_M^{(r)\alpha },a_N^{(s)\beta }]=G^{\alpha \beta }\delta _{MN}\delta ^{rs}`$ (13)
The coefficients $`𝒱_{MN}^{\alpha \beta ,rs}`$ are given by

$`𝒱_{00}^{\alpha \beta ,rs}=G^{\alpha \beta }\delta ^{rs}{\displaystyle \frac{2A^1b}{4a^2+3}}\left(G^{\alpha \beta }\varphi ^{rs}iaϵ^{\alpha \beta }\chi ^{rs}\right)`$ (14)
$`𝒱_{0n}^{\alpha \beta ,rs}={\displaystyle \frac{2A^1\sqrt{b}}{4a^2+3}}{\displaystyle \underset{t=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\left(G^{\alpha \beta }\varphi ^{rt}iaϵ^{\alpha \beta }\chi ^{rt}\right)V_{0n}^{ts}`$ (15)
$`𝒱_{mn}^{\alpha \beta ,rs}=G^{\alpha \beta }V_{mn}^{rs}{\displaystyle \frac{2A^1}{4a^2+3}}{\displaystyle \underset{t,v=1}{\overset{3}{}}}V_{m0}^{rv}\left(G^{\alpha \beta }\varphi ^{vt}iaϵ^{\alpha \beta }\chi ^{vt}\right)V_{0n}^{ts}`$ (16)
Here, by definition, $`V_{0n}^{rs}=V_{n0}^{sr}`$, and

$`\varphi ^{rs}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1/2& 1/2\\ 1/2& 1& 1/2\\ 1/2& 1/2& 1\end{array}\right),\chi ^{rs}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 1\\ 1& 0& 1\\ 1& 1& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (17)
These two matrices satisfy the algebra

$`\chi ^2=2\varphi ,\varphi \chi =\chi \varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\chi ,\varphi ^2={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\varphi `$ (18)
Moreover, in (16), we have introduced the notation

$`A=V_{00}+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{2}},a={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{A}}B,`$ (19)
Next we introduce the twist matrix $`C^{}`$ by $`C_{MN}^{}=(1)^M\delta _{MN}`$ and define

$`𝒳^{rs}C^{}𝒱^{rs},r,s=1,2,𝒳^{11}𝒳`$ (20)
These matrices commute

$`[𝒳^{rs},𝒳^{r^{}s^{}}]=0`$ (21)
Moreover we have the following properties, which mark a difference with the $`B=0`$ case,

$`C^{}𝒱^{rs}=\stackrel{~}{𝒱}^{sr}C^{},C^{}𝒳^{rs}=\stackrel{~}{𝒳}^{sr}C^{}`$ (22)
where tilde denotes transposition with respect to the $`\alpha ,\beta `$ indices. Finally one can prove that

$`𝒳+𝒳^{12}+𝒳^{21}=𝕀`$
$`𝒳^{12}𝒳^{21}=𝒳^2𝒳`$
$`(𝒳^{12})^2+(𝒳^{21})^2=𝕀𝒳^2`$
$`(𝒳^{12})^3+(𝒳^{21})^3=2𝒳^33𝒳^2+𝕀`$ (23)
In the matrix products of these identities, as well as throughout the paper, the indices $`\alpha ,\beta `$ must be understood in alternating up/down position: $`𝒳^\alpha _\beta `$. For instance, in (23) $`𝕀`$ stands for $`\delta ^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}\delta _{MN}^{}`$.

The lump solution we found in  satisfies $`|S=|S|S`$ and can be written as

$`|S`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{\mathrm{Det}(1X)^{1/2}\mathrm{Det}(1+T)^{1/2}\right\}^{24}\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta _{\overline{\mu }\overline{\nu }}{\displaystyle \underset{m,n1}{}}a_m^{\overline{\mu }}S_{mn}a_n^{\overline{\nu }})|0`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{A^2(3+4a^2)}{\sqrt{2\pi b^3}(\mathrm{Det}G)^{1/4}}}\left(\mathrm{Det}(𝕀𝒳)^{1/2}\mathrm{Det}(𝕀+𝒯)^{1/2}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{M,N0}{}}a_M^\alpha 𝒮_{\alpha \beta ,MN}a_N^\beta \right)|\stackrel{~}{0},`$
The quantities in the first line are defined in ref. with $`\overline{\mu },\overline{\nu }=0,\mathrm{},23`$ denoting the parallel directions to the lump and the matrix $`𝒮=C^{}𝒯`$ is given by

$`𝒯={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2𝒳}}\left(𝕀+𝒳\sqrt{(𝕀+3𝒳)(𝕀𝒳)}\right)`$ (25)
This is a solution to the equation

$`𝒳𝒯^2(𝕀+𝒳)𝒯+𝒳=0`$ (26)
The solution (2) is interpreted as a D–23 brane. Let $`𝔢`$ denote the energy per unit volume, which coincides with the brane tension when $`B=0`$. Then one can compute the ratio of the D23–brane energy density $`𝔢_{23}`$ to the D25-brane energy density $`𝔢_{25}`$ (from ):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝔢_{23}}{𝔢_{25}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi )^2}{(\mathrm{Det}G)^{1/4}}}`$ (27)
$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A^4(3+4a^2)^2}{2\pi b^3(\mathrm{Det}G)^{1/4}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Det}(𝕀𝒳)^{3/4}\mathrm{Det}(𝕀+3𝒳)^{1/4}}{\mathrm{Det}(1X)^{3/2}\mathrm{Det}(1+3X)^{1/2}}}`$ (28)
where $`XX^{11}=CV^{11}`$ is the matrix called $`M`$ in . $`X`$ is the matrix relevant to the sliver solution in VSFT. The 1 in the denominator of (28) stands for $`\delta _{nm}`$.

It was conjectured in  that $``$ equals 1 so that the ratio (27) is exactly what is expected for the ratio of a flat static D25–brane energy density and a D23–brane energy density in the presence of the $`B`$ field (6). This is indeed so as we will prove in the next section.

## 3 Proof that $`=1`$

This section is devoted to the proof of

$`=1`$ (29)
What we need is compute the ratio of $`\mathrm{Det}(𝕀𝒳)`$ and $`\mathrm{Det}(𝕀+3𝒳)`$ with respect to the squares of $`\mathrm{Det}(1X)`$ and $`\mathrm{Det}(1+3X)`$, respectively. To this end we follow the lines of ref.. To start with we rewrite $`𝒱^{11}𝒱`$ in a more convenient form. Following , we introduce the vector notation $`|v_e`$ and $`|v_0`$ by means of

$`|v_e_n={\displaystyle \frac{1+(1)^n}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{A_n}{\sqrt{n}}},|v_o_n={\displaystyle \frac{1(1)^n}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{A_n}{\sqrt{n}}},`$
The constants $`A_n`$ are as in . Now we can write

$`𝒱_{00}=\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2A^1b}{4a^2+3}}\right)\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$
$`𝒱_{0n}={\displaystyle \frac{2A^1\sqrt{2b}}{4a^2+3}}\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}v_e|_n+i\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2b}{3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{4aA^1}{4a^2+3}}𝐞v_o|_n,𝒱_{0n}=(1)^n𝒱_{n0}`$ (30)
$`𝒱_{nm}=\left(V_{nm}{\displaystyle \frac{4A^1}{4a^2+3}}(|v_ev_e|+|v_ov_o|)_{nm}\right)\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}+i{\displaystyle \frac{8}{\sqrt{3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{aA^1}{4a^2+3}}(|v_ev_o||v_ov_e|)_{nm}𝐞`$
where we have understood the indices $`\alpha ,\beta `$. They can be reinserted using

$`\mathrm{𝟏}^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}=\delta ^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{},𝐞^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}=ϵ^\alpha _\beta `$
Now $`𝒳=C^{}𝒱`$ can be written in the following block matrix form

$`𝒳=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}(12Kb)\mathrm{𝟏}& & 2K\sqrt{2b}\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}v_e|+4iaK\sqrt{\frac{2b}{3}}𝐞v_o|\\ & & \\ \begin{array}{c}2K\sqrt{2b}|v_e\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}\\ +4iaK\sqrt{\frac{2b}{3}}|v_o𝐞\end{array}& & \begin{array}{c}X\mathrm{𝟏}4K\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}(|v_ev_e||v_ov_o|)\\ +\frac{8}{\sqrt{3}}iaK𝐞(|v_ev_o|+|v_ov_e|)\end{array}\end{array}\right)`$ (31)
where all $`m,n`$ as well as all $`\alpha ,\beta `$ indices are understood, $`K=\frac{A^1}{4a^2+3}`$.

The first determinant we have to compute is the one of the matrix $`𝕀𝒳`$. Using (31) we extract from $`𝕀𝒳`$ the factor $`2bK`$ and represent the rest in the block form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2bK}}(𝕀𝒳)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}𝒜& \\ 𝒞& 𝒟\end{array}\right)`$
By a standard formula, the determinant of the RHS is given by the determinant of $`𝒟𝒞𝒜^1`$. After some algebra and using the obvious identity $`v_o|v_e=0`$, one gets

$`𝒟𝒞𝒜^1`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}1X\frac{4}{3}A^1|v_ov_o|& 0\\ 0& 1X\frac{4}{3}A^1|v_ov_o|\end{array}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\left(1X{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}A^1|v_ov_o|\right)\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$
The rest of the computation is straightforward,

$`\mathrm{Det}(𝕀𝒳)`$ $`=`$ $`(2bK)^2\left(\mathrm{Det}\left(1X{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}A^1|v_ov_o|\right)\right)^2`$ (32)
$`=`$ $`(2bK)^2\left(\mathrm{Det}(1X)\right)^2\left(\mathrm{Det}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}A^1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1X}}|v_ov_o|\right)\right)^2`$
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{b}{A}}\right)^4\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4a^2+3}}\right)^2\left(\mathrm{Det}(1X)\right)^2`$
In the last step we have used the identities, see ,

$`\mathrm{Det}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}A^1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1X}}|v_ov_o|\right)=1{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}A^1v_o|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1X}}|v_o`$ (33)
and

$`v_o|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1X}}|v_o={\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}V_{00}`$ (34)
The treatment of $`\mathrm{Det}(𝕀+3𝒳)`$ is less trivial. We start again by writing $`(𝕀+3𝒳)`$ in block matrix form

$`𝕀+3𝒳=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}(46Kb)\mathrm{𝟏}& & 6K\sqrt{2b}\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}v_e|+4iaK\sqrt{6b}𝐞v_o|\\ & & \\ \begin{array}{c}6K\sqrt{2b}|v_e\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}\\ +4iaK\sqrt{6b}|v_o𝐞\end{array}& & \begin{array}{c}(1+3X)\mathrm{𝟏}12K\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}(|v_ev_e||v_ov_o|)\\ +8\sqrt{3}iaK𝐞(|v_ev_o|+|v_ov_e|)\end{array}\end{array}\right)`$ (35)
and set

$`𝕀+3𝒳(46bK)\left(\begin{array}{cc}𝒜& \\ 𝒞& 𝒟\end{array}\right)`$ (36)
Therefore

$`\mathrm{Det}(𝕀+3𝒳)`$ $`=`$ $`(46bK)^2\mathrm{Det}\left(𝒟𝒞𝒜^1\right)`$ (37)
$`=`$ $`(46bK)^2\left(\mathrm{Det}(1+3X)\right)^2\mathrm{Det}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+3X}}\left(𝒟𝒞𝒜^1\right)\right)`$
The last expression is formal. In fact $`X`$ has an eigenvalue $`\frac{1}{3}`$ which renders the RHS of (37) ill–defined. To avoid this we follow  and introduce the regularized inverse

$`Y_\epsilon ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+3X\epsilon ^2X}}`$ (38)
where $`\epsilon `$ is a small parameter, and replace it into (37). After some algebra we find

$`Y_\epsilon \left(𝒟𝒞𝒜^1\right)=𝒜`$ (39)
The matrices in the RHS are given by

$`𝒜=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1+\alpha Y_\epsilon |v_ev_e|+\beta Y_\epsilon |v_ov_o|& 0\\ 0& 1+\alpha Y_\epsilon |v_ev_e|+\beta Y_\epsilon |v_ov_o|\end{array}\right)`$ (40)
where

$`\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{24K}{23bK}},\beta =12K{\displaystyle \frac{2A^1}{23bK}},`$ (41)
and

$`=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \lambda Y_\epsilon |v_2v_o|+\mu Y_\epsilon |v_ov_e|\\ \lambda Y_\epsilon |v_ev_o|\mu Y_\epsilon |v_ov_e|& 1\end{array}\right)`$ (42)
where,

$`\lambda ={\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{1+\alpha v_e|Y_\epsilon |v_e}},\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{1+\beta v_0|Y_\epsilon |v_0}},\gamma ^2+\alpha \beta ={\displaystyle \frac{4}{V_{00}}}\beta `$ (43)
Now, after some computation,

$`\mathrm{Det}𝒜=\left(1+\alpha v_e|Y_\epsilon |v_e\right)^2\left(1+\beta v_o|Y_\epsilon |v_o\right)^2`$ (44)
and

$`\mathrm{Det}=\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^2v_e|Y_\epsilon |v_ev_o|Y_\epsilon |v_0}{\left(1+\alpha v_e|Y_\epsilon |v_e\right)\left(1+\beta v_o|Y_\epsilon |v_o\right)}}\right)^2`$ (45)
As a consequence

$`\mathrm{Det}𝒜\mathrm{Det}=\left(1+\alpha v_e|Y_\epsilon |v_e+\beta v_o|Y_\epsilon |v_0\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4}{V_{00}}}v_e|Y_\epsilon |v_e\right)\right)^2`$ (46)
Now we can remove the regulator $`\epsilon `$ by using the basic result of :

$`\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4}{V_{00}}}v_e|Y_\epsilon |v_e\right)v_o|Y_\epsilon |v_o={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{12V_{00}}}`$ (47)
and

$`v_e|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+3X}}|v_e={\displaystyle \frac{V_{00}}{4}}.`$
Inserting this result in (46) we find

$`\mathrm{Det}𝒜\mathrm{Det}={\displaystyle \frac{A^2}{(8a^2A+6V_{00})^2}}\left(8a^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^2}{A^2}}\right)^2`$ (48)
As a consequence of eqs.(37,39,46,48) we find

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Det}(𝕀+3𝒳)}{(\mathrm{Det}(1+3X))^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{4}{(4a^2+3)^2}}\left(8a^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^2}{A^2}}\right)^2`$ (49)
Finally, substituting this and (32) into $``$, we get

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A^4(3+4a^2)^2}{2\pi b^3(\mathrm{Det}G)^{1/4}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Det}(𝕀𝒳)^{3/4}\mathrm{Det}(𝕀+3𝒳)^{1/4}}{\mathrm{det}(1X)^{3/2}\mathrm{Det}(1+3X)^{1/2}}}=1`$ (50)
This is what we wanted to show. It implies

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝔢_{23}}{𝔢_{25}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi )^2}{(\mathrm{Det}G)^{1/4}}}`$ (51)
which corresponds to the expected result for this ratio, as explained in . We remark that (49) implies that the eigenvalue $`\frac{1}{3}`$ is also contained in the spectrum of $`𝒳`$ with double multiplicity with respect to $`X`$.

## 4 Some results in VSFT with $`B`$ field

In this section we deal with a couple of results which are natural extensions of analogous results with $`B=0`$.

### 4.1 Wedge–like states

Wedge states were introduced in . They are geometrical states in that they can be defined simply by means of a conformal map of the unit disk to a portion of it. They are spanned by an integer $`n`$: the limit for $`n\mathrm{}`$ is the sliver $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$, which is interpreted as the D25–brane. Wedge states also admit a representation in terms of oscillators $`a_n^{}`$ with $`n>0`$,

$`|W_n=𝒩_n^{26}e^{\frac{1}{2}a^{}CT_na^{}}|0`$ (52)
which is specified by the matrix $`T_n`$, $`n>1`$. It can be shown that, see , $`T_n`$ satisfy a recursive relation which can be solved in terms of the matrix $`T`$ characterizing the sliver state ($`T=CS`$, $`S`$ being the sliver matrix). The normalization $`𝒩`$ can also be derived from a recursion relation. Since all these results are essentially based on equations which can be generalized to the case when a $`B`$–field is present and were in fact derived in , it is easy to deduce that analogous results will hold also when a $`B`$ field is turned on.

The generalized wedge states will be the tensor product of a factor like (52) for the the 24 directions in which the components of the $`B`$ field are zero and

$`|𝒲_n=𝒩_n^2e^{\frac{1}{2}a^{}C^{}𝒯_na^{}}|\stackrel{~}{0}`$ (53)
for the other two directions. From now on we will be concerned with the determination of $`𝒯_n`$ and $`𝒩_n`$. We start from the hypothesis that

$`[𝒳^{rs},𝒯_n]=0,C^{}𝒯_n=\stackrel{~}{𝒯}_nC^{}`$ (54)
whose consistency we will verify a posteriori.

Now we define $`𝒯_2=0`$ and the sequence of states

$`|𝒲_{n+1}=|𝒲_n|𝒲_2`$ (55)
Using eq.(4.4) and (4.7) of , with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}C^{}\stackrel{~}{𝒯}_n& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)`$, we find the recursion relation

$`𝒯_{n+1}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒳^{11}+(𝒳^{12},𝒳^{21})\left(1\left(\begin{array}{cc}𝒯_n𝒳^{11}& 𝒯_n𝒳^{12}\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)\right)^1\left(\begin{array}{c}𝒯_n𝒳^{21}\\ 0\end{array}\right)`$ (56)
$`=`$ $`𝒳{\displaystyle \frac{1𝒯_n}{1𝒯_n𝒳}}`$
where use has been made of the second equation in (23). Solving this recursion relation, , we can write

$`𝒯_n={\displaystyle \frac{𝒯+(𝒯)^{n1}}{1(𝒯)^n}}`$ (57)
Notice that this sequence of states can be extended to $`|𝒲_1`$ defined by $`𝒯_1=1`$. An analogous recursion relation applies also to the normalization factors. Once solved, it gives

$`𝒩_n=K_2^1\mathrm{Det}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1𝒯^2}{1(𝒯)^{n+1}}}\right)^{1/2}`$ (58)
The constant $`K_2`$ is defined in eq.(2.19) of . The relations (54) are now easy to verify.

The limit of $`𝒯_n`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$ is $`𝒯`$ (i.e. the deformation of the lump), provided $`lim𝒯^n=0`$. In turn, the latter holds if the eigenvalues of $`𝒯`$ are in absolute value less then 1, as those of $`T`$ are. This is very likely in view of the results on the ratio of determinants in the last section <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1An analysis of the eigenvalues of $`𝒳`$ has been recently announced in ..

### 4.2 Orthogonal projectors with $`B`$ field

In the presence of a background $`B`$ field it is also possible to construct other projectors than the one shown in (2). To show this we follow ref.. The treatment is very close to sec.3 and 5 of that reference, and the main purpose of this subsection is to stress some differences with it. As usual we will be concerned only with the transverse part of the projectors, the parallel being exactly the same as in , and will denote the transverse part of the solution (2) by $`|𝒮_{}`$.

We start by introducing the projection operators

$`\rho _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(𝕀+𝒯)(𝕀𝒳)}}\left[𝒳^{12}(𝕀𝒯𝒳)+𝒯(𝒳^{21})^2\right]`$ (59)
$`\rho _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(𝕀+𝒯)(𝕀𝒳)}}\left[𝒳^{21}(𝕀𝒯𝒳)+𝒯(𝒳^{12})^2\right]`$ (60)
They satisfy

$`\rho _1^2=\rho _1,\rho _2^2=\rho _2,\rho _1+\rho _2=𝕀`$ (61)
i.e. they project onto orthogonal subspaces. Moreover, if we use the superscript <sup>T</sup> to denote transposition with respect to the indices $`N,M`$ and $`\alpha ,\beta `$, we have

$`\rho _1^T=\stackrel{~}{\rho }_1=C^{}\rho _2C^{},\rho _2^T=\stackrel{~}{\rho }_2=C^{}\rho _1C^{}.`$ (62)
Now, in order to find another solution of the equation $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Psi }=|\mathrm{\Psi }`$, distinct from $`|𝒮_{}`$, we make the following ansatz:

$`|𝒫_{}=\left(\xi \tau a^{}\zeta a^{}+\kappa \right)|𝒮_{}`$ (63)
where $`\xi =\{\xi _N^\alpha \}`$, $`\zeta =C^{}\xi `$ and $`\tau `$ is the matrix $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$ acting on the indices $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. $`\kappa `$ is a constant to be determined and $`\xi `$ is required to satisfy the constraints:

$`\rho _1\xi =0,\rho _2\xi =\xi ,\mathrm{i}.\mathrm{e}.\stackrel{~}{\rho }_1\zeta =\zeta ,\stackrel{~}{\rho }_2\zeta =0`$ (64)
Using (61,64) it is simple to prove that

$`\zeta ^Tf(𝒳^{rs},𝒯)\xi =0,\xi ^Tf(\stackrel{~}{𝒳}^{rs},\stackrel{~}{𝒯})\zeta =0`$
for any function $`f`$. Now, imposing $`|𝒫_{}|𝒮_{}=0`$ we determine $`\kappa `$:

$`\kappa ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\zeta ^T\tau \left(𝒱𝒦^1\right)_{11}\xi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\xi ^T\left(𝒱𝒦^1\right)_{11}\tau \zeta `$ (65)
where

$`𝒦=𝕀𝒯𝒳,𝒱=\left(\begin{array}{cc}𝒱^{11}& 𝒱^{12}\\ 𝒱^{21}& 𝒱^{22}\end{array}\right)`$ (66)
Next we compute $`|𝒫_{}|𝒫_{}`$. This gives

$`|𝒫_{}|𝒫_{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\xi ^T\left(𝒱𝒦^1\right)_{12}\tau \zeta +\zeta ^T\tau \left(𝒱𝒦^1\right)_{21}\xi \right)\left(a^{}\tau \xi a^{}\zeta +\kappa \right)|𝒮_{}`$ (67)
where use has been made of the identities

$`\zeta ^T\tau \left(𝒱𝒦^1\right)_{11}\xi `$ $`=`$ $`\zeta ^T\tau \left(𝒱𝒦^1\right)_{22}\xi =\zeta ^T\tau \left(𝒱𝒦^1\right)_{12}\xi =\xi ^T\tau {\displaystyle \frac{𝒯}{𝕀𝒯^2}}\xi `$
$`\xi ^T\left(𝒱𝒦^1\right)_{11}\tau \zeta `$ $`=`$ $`\xi ^T\left(𝒱𝒦^1\right)_{22}\tau \zeta =\xi ^T\left(𝒱𝒦^1\right)_{21}\tau \zeta =\zeta ^T{\displaystyle \frac{𝒯}{𝕀𝒯^2}}\tau \zeta `$ (68)
$`\xi ^T\left(𝒱𝒦^1\right)_{12}\tau \zeta `$ $`=`$ $`\zeta ^T{\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝕀𝒯^2}}\tau \zeta ,\zeta ^T\tau \left(𝒱𝒦^1\right)_{21}\xi =\xi ^T\tau {\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝕀𝒯^2}}\xi `$
Similarly one can prove that

$`\zeta ^T{\displaystyle \frac{𝒯}{𝕀𝒯^2}}\tau \zeta =\xi ^T\tau {\displaystyle \frac{𝒯}{𝕀𝒯^2}}\xi ,\zeta ^T{\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝕀𝒯^2}}\tau \zeta =\xi ^T\tau {\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝕀𝒯^2}}\xi `$ (69)
So, in order for $`|𝒫_{}`$ to be a projector, we have to impose

$`\left(\xi ^T\left(𝒱𝒦^1\right)_{12}\tau \zeta +\zeta ^T\tau \left(𝒱𝒦^1\right)_{21}\xi \right)=2\xi ^T\tau {\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝕀𝒯^2}}\xi =2`$ (70)
Using this and following , it is simple to prove that

$`𝒫_{}|𝒫_{}=\left(\zeta ^T{\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝕀𝒯^2}}\tau \zeta \xi ^T\tau {\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝕀𝒯^2}}\xi \right)𝒮_{}|𝒮_{}=𝒮_{}|𝒮_{}`$ (71)
thanks to (69,70).

Therefore, under the condition

$`\xi ^T\tau {\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝕀𝒯^2}}\xi =1`$ (72)
the BPZ norm of $`|𝒫_{}+|𝒮_{}`$ is twice the norm of $`|𝒮_{}`$. As a consequence the sum of these two states, once they are tensored by the corresponding 24–dimensional complements defined in , represent a couple of parallel D23-branes.

Similarly one can construct more complicated brane configurations as suggested in .

## 5 Some effects of the $`B`$ field

So far we have seen that many results of VSFT without $`B`$ field are accompanied by parallel results in the presence of the $`B`$ field. In this section we would like to show that this is not merely a formal replication, but that in some cases a nonvanishing background $`B`$ field affects in a significant way the form of such results. Precisely we would like to show that a $`B`$ field has the effect of smoothing out some of the singularities that appear in the VSFT.

### 5.1 Low energy limit

In  it was shown that the geometry of the lower–dimensional lump states representing Dp-branes is singular. This can be seen both in the zero slope limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$ and as an exact result. It can be briefly stated by saying that the midpoint of the string is confined on the hyperplane of vanishing transverse coordinates. It is therefore interesting to see whether the presence of a $`B`$ field modifies this situation. Moreover it is also well known that soliton solutions of field theories defined on a noncommutative space describe Dp-branes (, ). It is then interesting to see if we can recover at least the simplest GMS soliton, using the particular low energy limit, i.e. the limit of , that gives a noncommutative field theory from a string theory with a $`B`$ field turned on.

To discuss this limit we first reintroduce the closed string metric $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ as $`g\delta _{\alpha \beta }`$. Now we take $`\alpha ^{}Bg`$, in such a way that $`G`$, $`\theta `$ and $`B`$ are kept fixed. The limit is described by means of a parameter $`ϵ`$ going to $`0`$ as in  ($`\alpha ^{}ϵ`$). We could also choose to parametrize the $`\alpha ^{}Bg`$ condition by sending $`B`$ to infinity, keeping $`g`$ and $`\alpha ^{}`$ fixed and operating a rescaling of the string modes as in , of course at the end we get identical results. By looking at the exponential of the 3-string field theory vertex in the presence of a $`B`$ field

$`{\displaystyle \underset{r,s=1}{\overset{3}{}}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{m,n1}{}}G_{\alpha \beta }a_m^{(r)\alpha }V_{mn}^{rs}a_n^{(s)\beta }+\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}{\displaystyle \underset{n1}{}}G_{\alpha \beta }p_{(r)}^\alpha V_{0n}^{rs}a_n^{(s)\beta }`$
$`+\alpha ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G_{\alpha \beta }p_{(r)}^\alpha V_{00}^{rs}p_{(s)}^\beta +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{r<s}{}}p_\alpha ^{(r)}\theta ^{\alpha \beta }p_\beta ^{(s)})`$ (73)
we see that the limit is characterized by the rescalings

$`V_{mn}V_{mn}`$
$`V_{m0}\sqrt{ϵ}V_{m0}`$ (74)
$`V_{00}ϵV_{00}`$
$`G_{\alpha \beta }`$ and $`\theta ^{\alpha \beta }`$ are kept fixed. Their explicit dependence on $`g`$, $`\alpha ^{}`$ and $`B`$ will be reintroduced at the end of our calculations in the form

$`G_{\alpha \beta }={\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi \alpha ^{}B)^2}{g}}\delta _{\alpha \beta },\theta ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{B}}`$ (75)
Substituting the leading behaviors of $`V_{MN}`$ in eqs.(16), and keeping in mind that $`A=V_{00}+\frac{b}{2}`$, the coefficients $`𝒱_{MN}^{\alpha \beta ,rs}`$ become

$`𝒱_{00}^{\alpha \beta ,rs}`$ $``$ $`G^{\alpha \beta }\delta ^{rs}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{4a^2+3}}\left(G^{\alpha \beta }\varphi ^{rs}ia\widehat{ϵ}^{\alpha \beta }\chi ^{rs}\right)`$ (76)
$`𝒱_{0n}^{\alpha \beta ,rs}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ (77)
$`𝒱_{mn}^{\alpha \beta ,rs}`$ $``$ $`G^{\alpha \beta }V_{mn}^{rs}`$ (78)
We see that the squeezed state (2) factorizes in two parts: the coefficients $`𝒱_{mn}^{\alpha \beta ,11}`$ reconstruct the full 25 dimensional sliver, while the coefficients $`𝒱_{00}^{\alpha \beta ,11}`$ take a very simple form

$`𝒮_{00}^{\alpha \beta }={\displaystyle \frac{2|a|1}{2|a|+1}}G^{\alpha \beta }sG^{\alpha \beta }`$ (79)
The soliton lump with this choice of the coefficients $`𝒱_{MN}^{\alpha \beta ,rs}`$ will be called $`|\widehat{𝒮}`$

$`|\widehat{𝒮}`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{\mathrm{Det}(1X)^{1/2}\mathrm{Det}(1+T)^{1/2}\right\}^{24}\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta _{\overline{\mu }\overline{\nu }}{\displaystyle \underset{m,n1}{}}a_m^{\overline{\mu }}S_{mn}a_n^{\overline{\nu }})|0`$
$`\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G_{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \underset{m,n1}{}}a_m^\alpha S_{mn}a_n^\beta )|0`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{A^2(3+4a^2)}{\sqrt{2\pi b^3}(\mathrm{Det}G)^{1/4}}}\left(\mathrm{Det}(𝕀𝒳)^{1/2}\mathrm{Det}(𝕀+𝒯)^{1/2}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}sa_0^\alpha G_{\alpha \beta }a_0^\beta \right)|\mathrm{\Omega }_{b,\theta },`$
where $`\overline{\mu },\overline{\nu }=0,\mathrm{}23`$ and $`\alpha ,\beta =24,25`$. In the low energy limit we have also

$`\mathrm{Det}(𝕀𝒳)^{1/2}\mathrm{Det}(𝕀+𝒯)^{1/2}={\displaystyle \frac{4}{4a^2+3}}\mathrm{det}(1X){\displaystyle \frac{4a}{2a+1}}\mathrm{det}(1+T)`$ (81)
So the complete lump state becomes

$`|\widehat{𝒮}`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{\mathrm{Det}(1X)^{1/2}\mathrm{Det}(1+T)^{1/2}\right\}^{26}\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \underset{m,n1}{}}a_m^\mu S_{mn}a_n^\nu )|0`$ (82)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4a}{2a+1}}{\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{\sqrt{2\pi b^3}(\mathrm{Det}G)^{1/4}}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}sa_0^\alpha G_{\alpha \beta }a_0^\beta \right)|\mathrm{\Omega }_{b,\theta },`$
where $`\mu ,\nu =0,\mathrm{}25`$ and $`G_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\overline{\mu }\overline{\nu }}G_{\alpha \beta }`$. The first line of (82) is the usual 25-dimensional sliver up to a simple rescaling of $`a_n^\alpha `$. The norm of the lump is now regularized by the presence of $`a`$ which is directly proportional to $`B`$: $`a=\frac{\pi ^2}{A}B`$. Using

$`|x=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{\mathrm{Det}G}}{b\pi }}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b}}x^\alpha G_{\alpha \beta }x^\beta {\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{b}}}ia_0^\alpha G_{\alpha \beta }x^\beta +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_0^\alpha G_{\alpha \beta }a_0^\beta \right]|\mathrm{\Omega }_{b,\theta }`$ (83)
we can calculate the projection onto the basis of position eigenstates of the transverse part of the lump state

$`x|e^{\frac{s}{2}(a_0^{})^2}|\mathrm{\Omega }_{b,\theta }`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{\mathrm{Det}G}}{b\pi }}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+s}}e^{\frac{1s}{1+s}\frac{1}{b}x^\alpha x^\beta G_{\alpha \beta }}`$ (84)
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{\mathrm{Det}G}}{b\pi }}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+s}}e^{\frac{1}{2|a|b}x^\alpha x^\beta G_{\alpha \beta }}`$
The transverse part of the lump state in the $`x`$ representation is then

$`x|\widehat{𝒮}_{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}e^{\frac{1}{2|a|b}x^\alpha x^\beta G_{\alpha \beta }}`$ (85)
Using the form (75) of $`G_{\alpha \beta }`$ and $`\theta ^{\alpha \beta }`$ and the expression for $`a`$ where we explicitate the dependence on $`g`$ and $`\alpha ^{}`$,

$`a={\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{4A}}\sqrt{\mathrm{Det}G}={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^2(\alpha ^{})^2B}{bg}}`$ (86)
we obtain the simplest soliton solution of  (see also  and references therein):

$`e^{\frac{1}{2|a|b}x^\alpha x^\beta G_{\alpha \beta }}`$ $``$ $`e^{\frac{x^\alpha x^\beta \delta _{\alpha \beta }}{|\theta |}}`$
which corresponds to the $`|00|`$ projector in the harmonic oscillator Hilbert space of . We notice that the profile and the normalization of $`x|\widehat{𝒮}_{}`$ do not depend on $`b`$.

As compared to , the $`B`$ field provides a natural realization of the regulator for the tachyonic soliton introduced ad hoc there. This beneficial effect of the $`B`$ field is confirmed by the fact that the projector (82) is no longer annihilated by $`x_0`$

$`x_0\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}sa_0^\alpha G_{\alpha \beta }a_0^\beta \right)|\mathrm{\Omega }_{b,\theta }`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{b}}{2}}(a_0a_0^{})\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}sa_0^\alpha G_{\alpha \beta }a_0^\beta \right)|\mathrm{\Omega }_{b,\theta }`$
$`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{b}}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4a}{2a+1}}\right]a_0^{}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}sa_0^\alpha G_{\alpha \beta }a_0^\beta \right)|\mathrm{\Omega }_{b,\theta }`$
Therefore, at least in the low energy limit, the singular structure found in  has disappeared.

### 5.2 The string midpoint

In the previous subsection a very interesting question has been raised. It concerns the string midpoint. It was shown in  that, in the absence of a $`B`$ field, the string midpoint in the lower dimensional lumps is confined to the hyperplane (D–brane) of vanishing transverse coordinates. We have seen above that this is not anymore the case when a constant background $`B`$ field is present, at least in the field theory limit. One might deduce from this that the string midpoint is not confined anymore in the full VSFT either. However such conclusion is far from self–evident. As we will see in the sequel, the field theory limit (tachyon) contribution to the string midpoint is only one out of an infinite set of other contributions which characterize the full theory and it is not inconceivable that there might be a cancellation between the field theory limit contribution and all the other terms. Evaluating the exact string midpoint position in the full VSFT is in fact a nontrivial and interesting problem. We intend to address it in this subsection.

The oscillator expansion for the transverse string coordinates is, , setting $`\alpha ^{}=\frac{1}{2}`$,

$`x^\alpha (\sigma )=x_0^\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{\theta ^{\alpha \beta }}{\pi }}p_{0,\beta }\left(\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\right)+\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[x_n^\alpha \mathrm{cos}(n\sigma )+{\displaystyle \frac{\theta ^{\alpha \beta }}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}p_{n,\beta }\mathrm{sin}(n\sigma )\right]`$ (87)
Therefore the string midpoint is specified by

$`x^\alpha \left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\right)=x_0^\alpha +\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^n\left[x_{2n}^\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{\theta ^{\alpha \beta }}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2n1}}p_{2n1,\beta }\right]`$ (88)
It is more convenient to pass to the operator basis $`a_N^\alpha ,a_N^\alpha `$, which satisfies the algebra (13) and are related to $`x_n,p_n`$ by

$`x_n^\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2n}}}\left(a_n^\alpha a_n^\alpha \right),p_{n,\alpha }=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}}G_{\alpha \beta }\left(a_n^\beta +a_n^\beta \right),`$ (89)
while the analogous relation for $`x_0,p_0`$ is given by eq.(12) with the specification that throughout this section, for simplicity, we fix $`b=2`$.

Now, confinement of the string midpoint means

$`x^\alpha \left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\right)|𝒮_{}=0`$ (90)
Evaluating the LHS we get

$`x^\alpha \left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\right)|𝒮_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}(a^{}+a^{}𝒮)_0^\alpha |𝒮_{}i{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{\sqrt{2n}}}(a^{}+a^{}𝒮)_{2n}^\alpha |𝒮_{}`$ (91)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{\sqrt{2n1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta ^{\alpha \beta }}{\pi }}G_{\beta \gamma }(a^{}a^{}𝒮)_{2n1}^\gamma |𝒮_{}`$
Confinement requires that this vanish. In order to write this condition in compact form, we introduce the $`2\times 2`$–matrix–valued vector

$`\mathrm{\Theta }=|\nu \mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}+|\mu 𝐞`$ (92)
where

$`|\nu =\{\nu _0,\nu _{2n}\},\nu _0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}},\nu _{2n}={\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{\sqrt{2n}}}`$
$`|\mu =\{\mu _{2n1}\},\mu _{2n1}=i\pi B{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{\sqrt{2n1}}}`$ (93)
Now the confinement condition for the string midpoint can be written as

$`𝒮C^{}\mathrm{\Theta }=\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{or},\mathrm{equivalently},\stackrel{~}{𝒯}\mathrm{\Theta }=\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{i}.\mathrm{e}.𝒯\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}.`$ (94)
Due to (25) an eigenvalue $`1`$ of $`𝒯`$ corresponds to an eigenvalue $`\frac{1}{3}`$ of $`𝒳`$ with the same eigenvector. Let us rewrite $`𝕀+3𝒳`$ as

$`𝕀+3𝒳=𝒴\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}+𝒵𝐞`$ (95)
Then eq.(94) becomes $`(𝕀+3𝒳)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}=0`$, which in turn corresponds to the two equations

$`𝒴|\nu +𝒵|\mu =0`$ (96)
$`𝒵|\nu 𝒴|\mu =0`$ (97)
It is useful to further split $`𝒴`$ as $`𝒴=𝒴_0+𝒴_1`$, where $`𝒴_0=𝒴(B=0)`$. Using (35) one obtains

$`𝒴_0=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}4(1A^1)& & 4A^1v_e|\\ & & \\ 4A^1|v_e& & 1+3X4A^1(|v_ev_e||v_ov_o|)\end{array}\right)`$ (98)
$`𝒴_1=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}12}H\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& & v_e|\\ & & \\ |v_e& & |v_ev_e||v_ov_o|\end{array}\right)`$ (99)
$`𝒵=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}\sqrt{3}iaK\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& & v_o|\\ & & \\ |v_o& & |v_ev_o|+|v_ov_e|\end{array}\right)`$ (100)
where $`H=\frac{4}{3}\frac{a^2A^1}{4a^2+3}`$.

Now let us express the previous equations in a more explicit form. To this end we conform to the notation of section 2 and write

$`|\nu =\nu _0|\nu _e,`$
$`|\mu =i\pi B|\lambda _o,`$
where

$`|\nu _e_n={\displaystyle \frac{1+(1)^n}{2}}\nu _n,\nu _n={\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{n/2}}{\sqrt{n}}}`$ (101)
$`|\lambda _o_n={\displaystyle \frac{1(1)^n}{2}}\lambda _n,\lambda _n={\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{(n+1)/2}}{\sqrt{n}}}`$ (102)
We remark that $`|\nu `$ is the eigenvector corresponding to the eigenvalue $`\frac{1}{3}`$ of $`𝒳(B=0)`$, introduced in ; and that $`|\lambda _o`$ is the eigenvector with eigenvalue $`\frac{1}{3}`$ of $`X`$, introduced in . As a consequence one has

$`𝒴_0|\nu =0,(1+3X)|\lambda _o=0`$ (103)
The first equation can be rewritten as

$`v_e|\nu _e=V_{00}\nu _0`$ (104)
$`(1+3X)|\nu _e=4\nu _0|v_e`$ (105)
Remarkably enough, all the other equations from (96, 97), after using (104) and the second equation in (103), reduce to a single one

$`v_o|\lambda _o=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}\pi `$ (106)
Therefore, since eqs.(103) have been proved independently, confinement of the string midpoint holds or not according to whether eq.(106) is true or not. Now, the LHS of this equation is

$`v_o|\lambda _o={\displaystyle \underset{n\mathrm{odd}}{}}(1)^{(n+1)/2}{\displaystyle \frac{A_n}{n}}`$ (107)
The latter series can be summed with standard methods and gives

$`v_o|\lambda _o={\displaystyle \frac{92\sqrt{3}\pi }{6}}`$
Therefore (106) is definitely not satisfied. So we can conclude that the string midpoint in the presence of a $`B`$ field is not confined on the hyperplane that identifies the D23–brane.

## 6 Conclusion

In this paper we have shown that the introduction of a $`B`$ field in VSFT does not prevent us from obtaining parallel results to those obtained when $`B=0`$. Once the formalism is set up, the formal complications brought about by the $`B`$ field are far from scaring. The calculations of section 3 and 4 are examples of this fact. On the other hand a nonvanishing background $`B`$ field may have advantageous aspects. The smoothing out effects of $`B`$ on the UV divergences of noncommutative field theories are well–known. The aim of this paper was to start exploring the effects of a $`B`$ field on the diverse singularities that appear in VSFT. We have verified that the singular geometry of the lump solutions, pointed out in , disappears in the presence of a $`B`$ field, in particular the string midpoint is not confined any longer to stay on the D–brane.

We remark that this deconfinement might mean also that the left–right factorization characteristic of the sliver solution, , is not possible for lump solutions with $`B`$ field. However it looks like there are other aspects of VSFT which may be fruitfully extended to VSFT with $`B`$ field. For instance, the series of wedge–like states introduced in section 4.1 seem to suggest that the geometric nature of the wedge states, , persists also in the presence of a $`B`$ field. This is confirmed by the results obtained recently in , where the presence of a $`B`$ field has been dealt with entirely geometrically. It would be interesting to know whether, for instance, the analogs of butterfly states in a constant $`B`$ background, , can be constructed. Another interesting subject concerns the connection, if any, of our approach with ref..

Note Added. This paper appeared on the net simultaneously with , which partially overlap with it.

###### Acknowledgments.

We would like to thank Martin Schnabl for discussions and stimulating suggestions. This research was supported by the Italian MIUR under the program “Teoria dei Campi, Superstringhe e Gravità”.


format: text

text:
# Mapping a quantum state of light onto a long-lived atomic spin state: towards quantum memory

## Abstract

We report an experiment on mapping a quantum state of light onto the ground state spin of an ensemble of Cs atoms with the life time of 2 milliseconds. Quantum memory for one of the two quadrature phase operators of light is demonstrated with vacuum and squeezed states of light. The sensitivity of the mapping procedure at the level of approximately one photon/sec per Hz is shown. The results pave the road towards complete (storing both quadrature phase observables) quantum memory for Gaussian states of light. The experiment also sheds new light on fundamental limits of sensitivity of the magneto-optical resonance method.

Quantum state exchange between light and atoms is an important ingredient for the future quantum information networks. It is also crucial for sensitive atomic measurements in optics when quantum limits of accuracy are approached. As shown recently both theoretically Kozhekin et al. (2000); Kuzmich et al. (1997) and experimentally Hald et al. (1999, 2000), for ensembles of atoms such exchange is feasible via free space interaction with light, as opposed to the case of a single atom which requires cavity QED settings for that purpose Briegel et al. (1999). In Hald et al. (1999, 2000) a short-lived squeezed spin state of an atomic ensemble has been generated via complete absorption of non-classical light. An alternative approach to mapping a quantum state of light onto an atomic state via electromagnetically induced transparency has been proposed Fleischhauer and Lukin (2000) and first experiments showing the feasibility of the method for classical amplitude and phase of light have been carried out Phillips et al. (2001); Liu et al. (2001).

In this Letter we demonstrate for the first time a possibility of mapping a quantum state of light onto a long-lived atomic spin state. A novel approach utilizing a measurement induced back-action along the lines of the proposal Kuzmich and Polzik (2000) is applied. We make use of the strong non-dissipative off-resonant coupling between the collective atomic spin and the polarization state of light. Such coupling has been recently used for generation of a spin squeezed atomic sample Kuzmich et al. (2000) and for entanglement of two separate atomic objects Julsgaard et al. (2001). The coupling yields partial information about the ground atomic spin state via a measurement performed on the transmitted probe light. However, simultaneously via the same interaction the quantum state of the optical probe is mapped onto the conjugate atomic spin component which therefore serves as a quantum memory.

We consider an ensemble of atoms with the collective spin $`𝐉=𝐣^{(i)}`$ where $`𝐣^{(i)}`$ is the total angular momentum of the $`i`$’th atom in the ground state. Throughout this paper the atoms are assumed to be spin polarized along the $`x`$-direction, i.e. $`J_x`$ is classical. The transverse spin components satisfy $`[\widehat{J}_y,\widehat{J}_z]=iJ_x`$. The experiment is carried out with cesium atoms in the $`F=4`$ hyperfine ground state.

We study mapping and storage of Gaussian states of light, more precisely, a vacuum or a squeezed vacuum state. This light described by the continuum mode $`\widehat{a}_y`$ Blow et al. (1990) is taken to be linearly polarized along the $`y`$ -direction. In order to enable the free space quantum state exchange with atoms, $`\widehat{a}_y`$ is mixed on a polarizing beam splitter (Fig. 1) with a strong classical field $`A_x`$ polarized along the $`x`$-direction. The polarization state of light after the beam splitter is described by Stokes parameters $`\widehat{S}_x=\frac{1}{2}\left(A_xA_x\widehat{a}_y^{}\widehat{a}_y\right)=\frac{1}{2}A_x^2`$ , $`\widehat{S}_y=\frac{1}{2}\left(A_x\widehat{a}_y+\widehat{a}_y^{}A_x\right)=\frac{A_x}{2}\left(\widehat{a}_y+\widehat{a}_y^{}\right)`$ , $`\widehat{S}_z=\frac{1}{2i}\left(A_x\widehat{a}_y\widehat{a}_y^{}A_x\right)=\frac{A_x}{2i}\left(\widehat{a}_y\widehat{a}_y^{}\right)`$ normalized to have the dimension sec<sup>-1</sup>. In the experiment we measure $`2\widehat{S}_y`$ which is the difference between the photon fluxes polarized along $`\pm 45^{}`$ directions. Operators $`\widehat{a}_i`$ and $`\widehat{a}_j^{}`$ fulfill $`[\widehat{a}_i(\omega ),\widehat{a}_j^{}(\omega ^{})]=\delta (\omega \omega ^{})\delta _{ij}`$. With $`S_x`$ regarded as classical, correlation functions for the Stokes operators are $`\widehat{S}_i(\omega )\widehat{S}_j(\omega ^{})=\frac{S_x}{2}ϵ_i\delta (\omega \omega ^{})\delta _{ij}`$ with $`i,j=y,z`$. The Stokes operators $`\widehat{S}_y`$ or $`\widehat{S}_z`$ are squeezed if the $`\widehat{a}_y`$ mode is in a squeezed state, and $`ϵ_i1`$ refers to squeezing/anti-squeezing. With a coherent probe $`ϵ_y=ϵ_z=1`$.

The interaction between the light and the atoms is modeled following Kuzmich and Polzik (2000), Duan et al. (2000) to obtain

$$\widehat{S}_z^{\text{out}}(t)=\widehat{S}_z^{\text{in}}(t),\widehat{S}_y^{\text{out}}(t)=\widehat{S}_y^{\text{in}}(t)+aS_x\widehat{J}_z(t)$$
(1)
where “in” and “out” refer to the light before and after interaction with the atoms. These equations are valid if the light is sufficiently far detuned from the atomic resonance, so that polarization rotation from circular birefringence is the dominant contribution to the interaction. Note that this rotation does not affect $`\widehat{S}_z`$ but can be read out in $`\widehat{S}_y`$. The strength of the interaction is described by the parameter $`a`$ which depends on the beam geometry, detuning and the interaction cross section Kuzmich and Polzik (2000).

The evolution of the atomic spins is described by the equations

$`\dot{\widehat{J}}_z(t)`$ $`=\mathrm{\Omega }\widehat{J}_y\mathrm{\Gamma }\widehat{J}_z(t)+\widehat{}_z(t)`$ (2)
$`\dot{\widehat{J}}_y(t)`$ $`=\mathrm{\Omega }\widehat{J}_z\mathrm{\Gamma }\widehat{J}_y(t)+\widehat{}_y(t)+aJ_x\widehat{S}_z(t)`$ (3)
where, as in Julsgaard et al. (2001), we introduce a constant magnetic field along the $`x`$-direction giving rise to Larmor precession with the frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. In what follows, the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ determines the frequency component of light which can be stored in the atomic medium. The decay of the transverse ground state spin components is described by the rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and their quantum statistics are described by the Langevin forces $`\widehat{}_y`$, $`\widehat{}_z`$. The term $`aS_x\widehat{J}_z(t)`$ in the equation (1) is responsible for the spin state read out. The term $`aJ_x\widehat{S}_z(t)`$ in equation (3) is the so-called back action of light onto atoms. This latter term feeds the quantum fluctuations of light into atoms. Taking the Fourier transforms of equations (2) and (3) we obtain

$`\widehat{J}_y(\omega )`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{iaJ_x\widehat{S}_z(\omega )+i\widehat{}_y(\omega )+\widehat{}_z(\omega )}{(\mathrm{\Omega }\omega )i\mathrm{\Gamma }}}`$ (4)
$`\widehat{J}_z(\omega )`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{aJ_x\widehat{S}_z(\omega )+\widehat{}_y(\omega )i\widehat{}_z(\omega )}{(\mathrm{\Omega }\omega )i\mathrm{\Gamma }}}`$ (5)
where we have made the narrow-band approximation $`|\omega \mathrm{\Omega }|\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Combining (4) with the Fourier transform of (1) we get $`\widehat{S}_y^{\text{out}}(\omega )=\widehat{S}_y^{\text{in}}(\omega )+\frac{\frac{1}{2}aS_x}{(\mathrm{\Omega }\omega )i\mathrm{\Gamma }}\left\{aJ_x\widehat{S}_z(\omega )+\widehat{}_y(\omega )i\widehat{}_z(\omega )\right\}`$. To calculate the power spectrum of $`\widehat{S}_y^{\text{out}}`$, we must know the correlation function for the Langevin noise terms. The role of these terms is to preserve the correct commutation relations for $`\widehat{J}_y`$ and $`\widehat{J}_z`$ in the presence of the decoherence described by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. In the experiment the decoherence is primarily caused by a resonant optical pump laser driving the atoms into the coherent spin state $`F=4`$, $`m_F=4`$ Kitagawa and Ueda (1993), and, to a much smaller extent, by collisions and quadratic Zeeman effect.

In order to compute the noise correlation functions we integrate equation (2) omitting the magnetic field and optical probe terms which do not contribute to the decoherence, i.e. with $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$ and $`a=0.`$ The result is

$$\widehat{J}_z(t)^2=\widehat{J}_z(0)^2e^{2\mathrm{\Gamma }t}+\frac{k_{zz}}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }}\left(1e^{2\mathrm{\Gamma }t}\right)$$
(6)
where we have assumed a memory-less reservoir Gardiner and Zoller (2000) of the form $`\widehat{}_z(t)\widehat{}_z(t^{})=k_{zz}\delta (tt^{})`$. Using the coherent spin state variance, $`\widehat{J}_z^2=J_x/2,`$ we obtain $`k_{zz}=\mathrm{\Gamma }J_x`$. The Fourier-transformed correlation function can then easily be shown to fulfill $`\widehat{}_z(\omega )\widehat{}_z^{}(\omega ^{})=J_x\mathrm{\Gamma }\delta (\omega \omega ^{})`$. With similar equations for the $`y`$-components we end up with the expression for the power spectrum $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\omega )`$ of $`\widehat{S}_y^{\text{out}}`$ observed in the experiment

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\omega )=\frac{S_x}{2}ϵ_y+\frac{\frac{1}{4}a^2S_x^2}{(\mathrm{\Omega }\omega )^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}\left\{\frac{a^2J_x^2S_xϵ_z}{2}+2\mathrm{\Gamma }J_x\right\}$$
(7)
The first term is determined by the $`\widehat{S}_y`$ component of the input light, i.e. by the quadrature phase operator $`\frac{1}{2}\left(\widehat{a}_y+\widehat{a}_y^{}\right)`$. The rest is due to the narrow band atomic state fluctuations with the life time $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$. The first term in the curly brackets is the back action noise due to the quantum state of the input light, more precisely due to the operator $`\frac{1}{2i}\left(\widehat{a}_y\widehat{a}_y^{}\right)`$. This is the "quantum memory term". The second term in the brackets is the projection noise of the initial atomic spin state.

Turning now to the experiment, we achieve nontrivial $`ϵ_{y,z}`$ values by using squeezed vacuum light generated by the frequency tunable degenerate optical parametric amplifier below threshold Polzik et al. (1998). This light is overlapped with the orthogonally polarized strong (up to 5mW) beam on a polarizing beam splitter (see Fig. 1). As shown in Hald et al. (2000) we can, by using this technique, vary the quantum fluctuations in $`\widehat{S}_y`$ to be below or above the coherent state limit depending on the relative phase between squeezed vacuum and the classical field. Typically the degree of squeezing emerging from our source is about -5dB, but due to various imperfections and losses only -3dB of Stokes parameter squeezing is detected, corresponding to $`ϵ_y=0.5`$. The degree of anti-squeezing is typically 8-9dB relative to the coherent state probe, corresponding to $`ϵ_z=68`$.

Our atomic sample is Cs vapor in a paraffin coated glass cell. The atomic angular momentum is created by optical pumping along the $`x`$-axis with two $`\sigma _+`$ polarized diode lasers resonant with the $`6S_{1/2}(F=4)6P_{1/2}(F=4)`$ transition and the $`6S_{1/2}(F=3)6P_{3/2}(F=4)`$ transition. By adjusting the relative power of the lasers we are able to control the number of atoms in the $`F=4`$ ground state. The degree of spin polarization ($`95`$%) and the number of atoms is measured by observing the magneto-optical resonance of the ground spin state.

The output Stokes parameter $`\widehat{S}_y`$ is measured by a polarizing beam splitter oriented at a 45 degree angle with respect to the mean input optical polarization. The probe is blue detuned by 875MHz from the $`6S_{1/2}(F=4)6P_{3/2}(F=5)`$ transition of Cs atoms at rest. The power spectrum of $`\widehat{S}_y`$ is recorded in a frequency window varying from 1.6kHz to 3.2kHz around $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The resulting spectrum is a narrow Lorentzian centered at $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with a width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. This width can be varied by adjusting the power of the optical pumping lasers with line widths in the range from 100Hz to 1kHz FWHM.

A typical spectrum is shown in Fig. 2. This spin noise resonance contains contributions from the spin projection noise, the back action term and the technical noise of the spin. The latter is not known, however, as shown below, it can be evaluated, and the consistency of the model can be verified by varying the quantum state of the probe. The two upper traces in the figure correspond to the vacuum state of the mode $`\widehat{a}_y`$ (the probe in a coherent polarization state) and the squeezed vacuum state of $`\widehat{a}_y`$ (the probe in a squeezed polarization state), respectively. The reduction of the optical quantum noise of $`\widehat{S}_y`$ is clearly seen in the wings of the atomic resonance when the polarization squeezed probe is applied. However, more interesting is that the atomic spin noise *grows* when the probe is squeezed in $`\widehat{S}_y`$. This is due to the light-induced back action noise of the atoms. Note that this back action may completely wash out the advantages of using squeezed light in sensitive magnetometry Kupriyanov and Sokolov (1992).

Figure 2 represents the evidence of anti-squeezed Stokes parameter $`\widehat{S}_z`$ being stored in the atoms. This storage takes place over a time scale on the order of ($`2\pi \mathrm{\Gamma })^1`$ which here corresponds to about 2 milliseconds. Note that squeezed vacuum output of the optical parametric amplifier Polzik et al. (1998) at our values of the gain contains about one photon per second per Hz of the bandwidth. Hence Fig. 2 shows the effect of approximately 200 photons/sec stored within the atomic bandwidth. We may expect therefore the sensitivity of the atomic memory at the level of a single photon for pulses with $`(2\pi \mathrm{\Gamma })^12`$ms duration.

From eq. (7) we know that the *back action noise area* (BANA) is proportional to $`ϵ_z`$, so that we can extract this contribution from the overall atomic spin noise by $`\text{BANA}=(A_{SQ}A_{COH})/(ϵ_z1)`$, where $`A_{COH}`$ and $`A_{SQ}`$ are the measured spin noise areas with a coherent and squeezed probe, respectively. We can also define the *residual spin noise* $`\text{RSN}=(ϵ_zA_{COH}A_{SQ})/(ϵ_z1)`$.

To compare the experimental results with theoretical predictions we integrate (7) over frequencies and calculate the back action noise area

$$\text{BANA}=\frac{\pi a^4J_x^2ϵ_z}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\left(\frac{S_x}{2}\right)^3$$
(8)
and the *projection noise area*

$$\text{PNA}=2\pi a^2J_x\left(\frac{S_x}{2}\right)^2$$
(9)
Knowing the *shot noise level* $`\text{SNL}=S_x/2`$ we obtain for a coherent probe ($`ϵ_y=ϵ_z=1`$),

$$\text{PNA}=2\sqrt{\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }(\text{BANA})\times (\text{SNL})}$$
(10)
Varying $`ϵ_z`$ we can determine the back action term (8 ), which is in turn determined by the quantum state of the probe light. With the knowledge of the BANA and the SNL, we are able to deduce the size of the PNA from equation (10).

We now vary the probe power to confirm the $`S_x^3`$ dependence of the back action noise and the number of atoms to confirm the $`J_x^2`$ dependence. We find the BANA to scale with $`S_x^p`$, where $`p=2.8\pm 0.2`$, and $`J_x^q`$ with $`q=2.0\pm 0.2`$ in good agreement with the theory. During the sequence of measurements $`ϵ_y`$ and $`ϵ_z`$ are monitored several times and variations are found to be less than 10%. Even more exciting is to observe the variation of BANA and RSN with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. From Fig. 3(a) we see that the BANA decreases as expected with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$ to within a few percent. The RSN dependence on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, shown in Fig. 3(b), is found to fall off roughly with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$ until a value of approximately $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }=500`$Hz is reached. Here the RSN starts leveling out to approach a constant value. This is due to the higher degree of optical pumping, and hence higher $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, which pushes the atomic spin towards the coherent spin state (CSS) and thereby washes out any additional (technical) noise in the spin state. We therefore expect the RSN to converge to a level set by the CSS. In our notation this level is just the PNA, and using eq. (10) we can estimate this level from the BANA. This estimate is also shown in Fig. 3(b) where we see that the RSN indeed is approaching the PNA at higher values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

Finally, we fix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and vary the number of atoms ($`J_x`$), see Fig. 4. Again from the measured BANA we can infer the PNA and observe that it grows proportionally with $`J_x`$ to test of the consistency of our model. The plotted results are obtained at two very different decay rates $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }=264\pm 20`$ Hz and $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }=485\pm 20`$Hz, but nonetheless fit nicely to the same line confirming the theory.

In summary we have shown how partial information about an unknown Gaussian quantum state of light, more precisely the value of the operator $`\frac{1}{2i}\left(\widehat{a}_y\widehat{a}_y^{}\right)`$, can be mapped onto the atomic ground state spin, where it is stored for approximately 2ms. We have also demonstrated how this information is read out again by the probe via the narrow band atomic spin noise around the Larmor frequency. Most importantly we have demonstrated that long-lived atomic spin ensembles can serve as quantum memory for light sensitive enough to store quantum states of optical fields containing just a few photons.

In our continuous wave experiment the probe effectively reads out its own quantum state at an earlier time which has been stored in atoms. Future experiments using two pulses, one to be stored and another to read out the stored information, are clearly feasible. Another important step towards full scale quantum memory for light will be to achieve storage and retrieval of the full quantum state of light, which for a Gaussian state corresponds to both $`\frac{1}{2i}\left(\widehat{a}_y\widehat{a}_y^{}\right)`$ and $`\frac{1}{2}\left(\widehat{a}_y+\widehat{a}_y^{}\right)`$ operators. In order to store the full quantum state of light one has to use two entangled atomic ensembles Julsgaard et al. (2001), rather than just one ensemble, as in the present paper. For the atomic state read-out Kuzmich and Polzik (2000) two entangled beams of light, rather than a single beam, as in the present work, should be used.

The narrow band frequency response of the atomic ground state spin allows only for storage of a few hundred Hz wide frequency band of the optical state around the carrier frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. One way to overcome this limit would be to apply a linear magnetic field gradient in the $`z`$-direction, or to use an inhomogeneously broadened solid state medium Turukhin et al. (2002). This would make atoms at different positions have different Larmor frequencies, hence they would store different frequency components of the optical state and the entire optical spectrum of interest could then be mapped onto atoms.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by the Danish National Research Foundation and by the EU QIPC network via the QUICOV project.


text:
# Ground state of a partially melted Wigner molecule

## Abstract

We consider three spinless fermions free to move on $`2d`$ square lattice with periodic boundary conditions and interacting via a $`U/r`$ Coulomb repulsion. When the Coulomb energy to kinetic energy ratio $`r_s`$ is large, a rigid Wigner molecule is formed. As $`r_s`$ decreases, we show that melting proceeds via an intermediate regime where a floppy two particle molecule coexists with a partially delocalized particle. A simple ansatz is given to describe the ground state of this mesoscopic solid-liquid regime.

Ordered arrays of charged particles with long range Coulomb repulsion have been a continuous subject of interest in various branches of physics, including colloidal suspensions, ion rings, atomic-ion Wigner crystals, quantum computers, biophysics, plasmas, electrons deposited on liquid Helium surfaces, charges created in semiconductor or organic field effect devices. These arrays can melt, exhibiting a transition from collective towards independent-particle motion, either as a function of the temperature (classical melting) or as a function of the charge density (quantum melting) at very low temperature. In principle, the quantum melting can be observed using electrons trapped in quantum dots  or cooled ions confined in radio frequency traps . Very often, a parabolic confinement is imposed. When the confinement is weak and at a sufficiently low temperature, the Coulomb repulsion dominates the kinetic energy, the charges are ordered and a Wigner molecule is formed. If the confinement becomes stronger, the kinetic energy dominates the Coulomb repulsion, the molecule melts and one gets a Fermi system of weakly interacting particles. In a parabolic $`2d`$ trap, the molecule consists of well-separated shells. Both for the classical melting  (achieved by increasing the temperature for a given trap) and for the quantum melting  (achieved at zero temperature by reducing the size of the trap), it has been observed that melting proceeds in two stages: first neighboring shells may rotate relative to each other while retaining their internal order, second the shell broadening leads to radial melting. Wigner quantum crystallization in $`2d`$ electron dots is characterized by two distinct - radial and orientational - ordering transitions. However, a parabolic trap does not yield a uniform charge density, the low density shells at the edges could order before the high density part in the bulk, and this two stage melting could be an artifact due to the interplay between surface and bulk orderings. It is therefore interesting to study if a multi stage melting persists in a system of uniform charge density, for instance when the charges are confined on a $`2d`$ torus. One has then to take into account the translational symmetry of a $`2d`$ torus instead of the rotational symmetry of a parabolic trap.

Another important issue can be mentioned, assuming that insights gained through investigations limited to small systems provide the foundations for understanding larger systems. Long ago, it was suggested by Andreev and Lifshitz  that low temperature localized defects change into excitations that move practically freely through a crystal. As a result, the number of sites of a quantum crystal may be smaller than the total number of particles present in the system for intermediate couplings, such a crystal being neither a solid, nor a liquid. Two kinds of motion are possible in it; one possesses the properties of motion in an elastic solid, the second possesses the properties of motion in a liquid.

An intermediate regime of melting was detected using $`N=4`$ spinless fermions in a $`L\times L`$ lattice, and it was observed  that a combination of a few plane waves and site orbitals was able to describe it, suggesting a liquid-solid regime consistent either with a scenario à la Andreev-Lifshitz, or with a possible quantum liquid crystal regime . This intermediate regime was shifted to lower ratios $`r_s`$ when site disorder was included. Many signatures of a novel ground state (GS) were observed for intermediate couplings, considering the structure  of the persistent currents when the torus was pierced by an Aharonov-Bohm flux, the statistics  of its low energy excitations, the failure  of the Hartree Fock approximation to describe the persistent currents above a first ratio $`r_s^F`$, the suppression of the same currents above a higher ratio $`r_s^W`$, the GS magnetization  when the spin degrees of freedom where included. Moreover, it was noticed in Ref.  that the ratios $`r_s^F<r_s<r_s^W`$ where the novel mesoscopic GS was observed were consistent with those where transport measurements using dilute electron gases in $`2d`$ field effect devices  indicate the puzzling possibility of a novel $`2d`$ metal.

The purpose of this work is to reveal the exact nature of the intermediate mesoscopic GS and to describe it with a simple wave function, considering $`N=3`$ spinless fermions with $`U/r`$ Coulomb repulsion in a $`L\times L`$ square lattice with periodic boundary conditions. Using the operators $`c_j^{}`$ ($`c_j`$) , $`c_k`$ ($`c_k^{}`$) which create (destroy) a spinless fermion either at the lattice site $`j=(j_x,j_y)`$ or in a plane wave state of momentum $`k=(k_x,k_y)`$ of this lattice, the Hamiltonian reads:

$$H=t\underset{j,j^{}}{}c_j^{}c_j^{}+\frac{U}{2}\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j,j^{}}{jj^{}}}{}\frac{n_jn_j^{}}{d_{j,j^{}}}=\underset{k}{}ϵ_kc_k^{}c_k+\underset{k,k^{},q}{}U(q)c_{k+q}^{}c_{k^{}q}^{}c_k^{}c_k.$$
(1)
$`n_j=c_j^{}c_j`$, $`d_{j,j^{}}`$ is the shortest distance between sites $`j`$ and $`j^{}`$, $`ϵ_k=2t(\mathrm{cos}k_x+\mathrm{cos}k_y)`$ and $`U(q)=U/(2L^2)_j\mathrm{cos}(qj)/d_{0,j}`$. The Coulomb energy to kinetic energy ratio $`r_s=U/(2t\sqrt{\pi n_e})`$ for a filling factor $`n_e=N/L^2`$. The operators $`c_k`$ and $`c_j`$ are related by the usual Fourier transform:

$$c_k=\frac{1}{L}\underset{j}{}e^{i(kj)}c_j.$$
(2)
In the eigenbasis of the non interacting system (eigenvectors $`c_{k_1}^{}c_{k_2}^{}c_{k_3}^{}|0`$, $`|0`$ being the vacuum state), the Hamiltonian matrix is block diagonal, each block being characterized by the same conserved total momentum $`K=_{i=1}^3k_i`$. Moreover, only the non interacting states having in common one $`k`$ out of three can be coupled by the interaction inside a $`K`$ sub-block. Therefore, each $`K`$ sub-block is a sparse matrix which can be exactly diagonalized using the Lanczos algorithm when $`L`$ is small enough.

In the large coupling limit ($`r_s\mathrm{}`$) the eigenstates correspond to rigid Wigner molecules. For a localized center of mass, the charges would be simply located on three lattice sites $`a,b`$ and $`c`$, the location of those sites minimizing the electrostatic energy. However translational invariance implies a delocalization of the center of mass in a plane wave state of momentum $`K`$, and the Wigner molecule wave functions become:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{L}\underset{j}{}e^{i(Kj)}c_{j+a}^{}c_{j+b}^{}c_{j+c}^{}|0.$$
(3)
For a given shape $`(a,b,c)`$ of the three particle molecule, one has three well defined inter particle spacings $`d_{min}d_{int}d_{max}`$. The electrostatic energy becomes $`U(d_{min}^1+d_{int}^1+d_{max}^1)`$ while the kinetic energy $`t_{eff}`$ (center of mass effective band width) $`0`$ as $`r_s\mathrm{}`$. For some arbitrary values of $`K`$ and for some molecular shapes of low electrostatic energy, we have decreased $`r_s`$ and followed the corresponding levels, ignoring possible level crossings with other levels of different $`K`$ and of different molecular shape. Two examples calculated using a $`L=8`$ lattice are shown in Fig. 1, revealing the generic scenario for the melting of a three particle Wigner molecule. If one considers the change of the relative fluctuations $`\mathrm{\Delta }d/d`$ as one increases $`r_s`$, one can see both for $`d_{min}`$ and $`d_{max}`$ a crossover from a weak coupling behavior where the fluctuations are large (the $`d`$ are not well defined) towards a large coupling behavior where the fluctuations become negligible (the $`d`$ become well defined). The weak (strong) coupling limits can be described using $`U/t`$ ($`t/U`$) perturbative expansions. For instance, the large coupling behavior of the Wigner molecule is given at first order of a $`t/U`$ expansion by:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(1)=|\mathrm{\Psi }+\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha =1}{\alpha 0}}{\overset{12}{}}\frac{t}{\mathrm{\Delta }E_\alpha }|\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ,$$
(4)
where the $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha `$ label the Wigner molecules of same $`K`$ obtained by moving one of the sites $`a,b,c`$ of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ by one lattice spacing, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_\alpha U`$ being the corresponding changes of electrostatic energy. This gives the $`t/U`$ decays of the three $`\mathrm{\Delta }d/d`$ indicated in Fig. 1.

The main point to notice is the clear separation between the crossover ratios $`r_s^{}`$ (indicated by the arrows in Fig. 1) characterizing $`d_{min}`$ and $`d_{max}`$. As one can see in the data, there are relatively large intervals of intermediate couplings where $`d_{min}`$ is well defined while $`d_{max}`$ is not, giving rise to an intermediate behavior for $`d_{int}`$. This tells us that the generic melting of a three particle molecule proceeds also in two stages, if one considers a $`2d`$ system of uniform density, as it had been shown using $`2d`$ parabolic traps. The intermediate regime of melting consists of a floppy two particle molecule co-existing with a third delocalized particle.

We now study the ground states (GSs) of the three body problem. The GS momenta and degeneracies depend on $`L`$, as the possible existence of GS level crossings. For simplicity, let us consider the case where $`L`$ is even. At $`U=0`$, one has a sixfold GS degeneracy which is partially removed by an infinitesimal $`U`$, the energy of a set of four states with momenta $`K=(\pm 2\pi /L,\pm 2\pi /L)`$ and $`K=(\pm 2\pi /L,2\pi /L)`$ becoming different to those of the two $`K=0`$ states. Using a $`U/t`$ expansion, one finds that the GSs remain in the first set for $`L6`$ while they go into the second set for $`L8`$. At $`t=0`$, the low energy Wigner molecules are $`L^2`$ triangles ($`d_{min}=d_{int}=L/2,d_{max}=L/\sqrt{2}`$) having $`L^2/4`$ different locations of their centers of mass and $`4`$ different orientations. This $`L^2`$ degeneracy is removed when one turns on $`t`$. The energies $`E_0(K)`$ of the $`L^2`$ first levels are given when $`t/U0`$ by:

$$E_0(K)A2t_{eff}\left(\mathrm{cos}K_x+\mathrm{cos}K_y\right)+2r_{eff}\left(\mathrm{cos}(K_xL/2)+\mathrm{cos}(K_yL/2)\right),$$
(5)
where $`A`$ is a K-independent energy, $`t_{eff}t(t/U)^{N1}`$ is the effective center of mass band width while $`r_{eff}t(t/U)^{L/21}`$ is the effective band width coming from single particle motions which couple triangles of same center of mass but of different orientations ($`L/2`$ one particle hops). For $`L8`$, $`t_{eff}>>r_{eff}`$, one has a non degenerate $`K=0`$ GS when $`t/U\mathrm{}`$, and consequently a GS level crossing as $`r_s`$ increases inside the $`K=0`$ subspace between the two weak coupling GSs and the single large coupling GS. For $`L=6`$, $`r_{eff}`$ and $`t_{eff}`$ are both $`t^3/U^2`$, the GSs keep as $`r_s`$ varies their momenta $`K=(\pm 2\pi /L,\pm 2\pi /L)`$ and $`K=(\pm 2\pi /L,2\pi /L)`$ (fourfold degeneracy) and no GS level crossing occurs. Hereafter we study the $`L=6`$ GS of momentum $`K=(2\pi /6,2\pi /6)`$. This allows us to avoid the complications coming from the GS level crossing for $`L8`$. However, as shown by the previous examples, our results will be relevant to generically describe the multi stage quantum melting of a $`N=3`$ low energy Wigner molecule if one continuously follows a given level from large couplings towards weak couplings.

For $`L=6`$, the degeneracy of the $`L^2`$ triangular molecules is broken when one turns on $`t`$. A $`t/U`$ expansion gives for the $`L^2=36`$ low energy levels

$$E_0(K)=A_22t_3\left(\mathrm{cos}2\pi K_x+\mathrm{cos}2\pi K_y\right)+2r_3\left(\mathrm{cos}2\pi 3K_x+\mathrm{cos}2\pi 3K_y\right)+0(\frac{t^4}{U^3})..$$
(6)
$`A_2=0.9023U208.9(t^2/U)`$, $`t_3=1000(t^3/U^2)`$ and $`r_3=1660(t^3/U^2)`$. This $`t/U`$ expansion makes sense when both $`d_{min}`$ and $`d_{max}`$ are well defined, with small relative fluctuations of order $`t/U`$. This means $`r_s200`$ (see Fig. 3). To describe lower $`r_s`$ ($`40<r_s<200`$), where $`d_{min}3`$ is well defined, while $`d_{max}`$ has still large fluctuations, we propose a simple ansatz based on the concept of partially melted triangular molecules (PMTMs). A x-oriented PMTM (x-PMTM) is a rigid two particle Wigner molecule (2PWM) with $`d_{min}=L/2`$ combined with a third particle free to move with a wave vector $`k_x`$ parallel to the 2PWM at a distance $`L/2`$, as sketched in Fig. 2. The x-PMTM wave function of momentum $`K`$ reads:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_x(K,k_x)=\frac{1}{6\sqrt{2}}\underset{j}{}e^{i(K_xk_{3x})j_x+K_yj_y}c_{j+a}^{}c_{j+b}^{}c_{k_x,j_y+c_y}^{}|0,$$
(7)
where $`a=(0,0),b=(3,0),c=(0,3)`$, and

$$c_{k_{3x},j_y+c_y}^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\underset{j_x^{}}{}e^{ik_xj_x^{}}c_{j_x^{},j_y+c_y}^{}.$$
(8)
$`(K_xk_x)6/(2\pi )`$ must be odd, which leads to $`k_x=0,\pm 2\pi /3`$ for $`K=(2\pi /6,2\pi /6)`$. The y-oriented PMTM wave function $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_y(K,k_y)`$ is defined in a similar way. The final PMTM ansatz of momentum $`K`$ is a normalized combination of the x and y-PMTMs, which reads:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(K,k_x,k_y)=\frac{|\mathrm{\Psi }_x(K,k_x)|\mathrm{\Psi }_y(K,k_y)}{\sqrt{22\mathrm{\Psi }_x(K,k_{3x})\mathrm{\Psi }_y(K,k_{3y})}}=\sqrt{\frac{3}{8}}\left(|\mathrm{\Psi }_x(K,k_x)|\mathrm{\Psi }_y(K,k_y)\right),$$
(9)
and the constraint $`k_x=k_y`$ makes it invariant under $`xy`$ permutation.

In Fig. 2, the three values $`P_x(K,k_x)=|\mathrm{\Psi }_0(K)\mathrm{\Psi }_x(K,k_x)|^2`$ taken by the projections of the exact GS $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0(K)`$ over the x-PMTMs $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_x(K,k_x)`$ are given as a function of $`r_s`$, together with the GS projection $`P(K,k_x,k_y)=|\mathrm{\Psi }_0(K)\mathrm{\Psi }(K,k_x,k_y)|^2`$ over the PMTM of momenta $`(K,k_x=0,k_y=0)`$. Following the three projections over the x-PMTMs of different wave vector $`k_x`$, one can see how the third particle gets progressively localized in the x-direction as $`r_s`$ increases, the rigid three particle triangular molecule corresponding to $`P_x(K,k_x)=1/3`$ for the three possible $`k_x`$. $`P(K,k_x=0,k_y=0)93\%`$ at $`r_s100`$. However, only the PMTMs with $`k_x=k_y=0`$ contribute when $`r_s50`$. For those values of $`r_s`$, the third particle is fully delocalized in the direction parallel to the oriented PMWMs. However, it is likely that the PMTM ansatz overestimates the rigidity of the remaining 2PWM when $`r_s`$ becomes smaller. This can be partly fixed using a $`t/U`$ expansion for the 2PWM (as sketched in Fig. 2 left) and keeping the third particle in its delocalized plane wave state with $`k_x(k_y)=0`$.

The improvements coming from this partial $`t/U`$ expansion of the PMTM ansatz are given in Fig. 3, where one can see the behaviors of the bare ansatz, of the ansatz corrected to first order and to second order of the $`t/U`$ expansion of the 2PWM. In the upper figures, the GS projections and the relative errors $`\mathrm{\Delta }E(p)/E`$ are shown, $`E`$ denoting the exact GS energy, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E(p)=E_A(p)E`$, $`E_A(p)`$ being the ansatz energy at the $`p^{th}`$ order of the partial $`t/U`$ expansion. Not only the GS description is improved, but lower values of $`r_s`$ can now be reached. In the lower figures, the three GS interparticle spacings $`d_{min}`$ $`d_{int}`$ and $`d_{max}`$ are given, and compared to the corresponding values of the ansatz, after a second order $`t/U`$ expansion of the 2PWM. As underlined by the arrows, both the averages and the variances are now well described for $`r_s40`$.

However, let us underline that the mesoscopic melting process is not yet achieved at $`r_s40`$. From a study of the weak coupling limit, we have obtained precursor behaviors of the formation of the Wigner molecule at smaller $`r_s`$. For instance, certain GS projections over low energy non interacting states which are close in energy to the non interacting GS, but orthogonal to the large coupling Wigner molecule begin to decay when $`r_s>5`$. Therefore, the PMTM ansatz, even improved by a $`t/U`$ expansion of the 2PWM fails to describe this precursor regime ($`5<r_s<30`$) where a floppy 2PWM takes place, but is not rigid enough to be described by a simple $`t/U`$ expansion.

In summary, we have shown that the quantum melting of a three particle Wigner molecule confined on a $`2d`$ torus proceeds via an intermediate regime which can be described by the simple concept of a partially melted Wigner molecule, built of a delocalized particle and of a floppy 2PWM. This is in agreement with the general multi stage picture of mesoscopic quantum melting given by other works using $`2d`$ parabolic traps. At a mesoscopic scale, this gives a simple illustration of the quantum crystal with $`k=0`$ defectons conjectured by Andreev and Lifshitz. Notably, one can see that the number of Wigner lattice sites is smaller than the total number of charges. This shows that the multi stage melting is not a mesoscopic surface effect and suggests that dilute $`2d`$ electron gases of intermediate $`r_s`$ could be more complicated than usually assumed.

This work was supported by the EU program “Nanoscale dynamics, coherence and computation” and the Hungarian Science Foundation OTKA TO25866 and TO34832.


text:
# On Scaling Solutions with a Dissipative Fluid

Present address: \]Relativity and Cosmology Group, Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch 7701, Cape Town, South Africa

## Abstract

We study the asymptotic behaviour of scaling solutions with a dissipative fluid and we show that, contrary to recent claims, the existence of stable accelerating attractor solution which solves the ‘energy’ coincidence problem depends crucially on the chosen equations of state for the thermodynamical variables. We discuss two types of equations of state, one which contradicts this claim, and one which supports it.

Current observational evidence suggests that the Universe is flat and accelerating P (1). Since the average energy-density of matter is relatively low there should consequentially exist a dark energy smoothly distributed with roughly the same magnitude as the matter energy. In general this requires fine-tuning of the initial conditions and has become known as the ‘energy’ coincidence problem. The simplest explanation for this dark energy is a vacuum energy density; however, due to the discrepancy between the “observed” value of the cosmological constant and that predicted by particle physics W (2), alternative mechanisms should be considered. One model that has recently attracted attention explains the “missing” energy in terms of the existence of a minimally coupled scalar field (“quintessence” field) S (3). By a suitable choice of the scalar field interaction potential, the scalar field evolves becoming the dominant contribution to the energy density today. These type of solutions (matter scaling solutions) were first studied in R (4) and their stability, for the exponential potential case, were analyzed in ss (5). However, since FLRW solutions with a perfect fluid and a scalar field evolve towards a scaling solution that does not accelerate (unless matter violates the strong energy condition), Chimento *et al.* Ch (6) considered a dissipative fluid by means of the existence of a bulk dissipative pressure. Bulk viscosity may be associated with particle production Z (8), may be understood as frictional effects that appears in mixtures U (9) or even to model other kinds of sources (e.g. the string dominated universe described by Turok T (10) or a scalar field Ib (11)).

In Ch (6) the authors studied the effect of the bulk viscosity by using the truncated Israel-Stewart theory I (7) and claimed that there exists a stable attractor that has an accelerated expansion thereby solving the energy coincidence problem. However, their analysis was not complete: the differential equation for the function gamma defined in (10) of their article was not taken into account and the equation of state for the bulk pressure was not stated. In this paper we study the asymptotic behaviour of a FLRW model with a dissipative fluid and a scalar field with exponential potential using two different equations of state for the bulk pressure.

We will show that the claim stated in Ch (6), that there exist stable accelerating matter scaling solutions with non-zero bulk viscosity, cannot be substantiated. We will show that the conclusions in Ch (6) depend crucially on the chosen equation of state for the coefficient of bulk viscosity, $`\xi `$, and the relaxation time, $`\tau `$.

We assume a FLRW metric:

$$ds^2=dt^2+a^2(t)d\mathrm{\Omega }^2$$
(1)
with a source given by a fluid with bulk viscosity and a scalar field with a exponential potential:

$$T_{ab}=T_{ab}^\varphi +T_{ab}^m,$$
(2)
where

$$T_{ab}^\varphi =\varphi _a\varphi _bg_{ab}\left(\frac{1}{2}\varphi _c\varphi ^c+V(\varphi )\right)$$
(3)
and

$$T_{ab}^m=\rho u_au_b+(p+\sigma )(u_au_b+g_{ab}),$$
(4)
where $`\sigma `$ is the viscous pressure, $`p`$ is the thermodynamic pressure and $`\rho `$ is the energy density. Einstein’s equations are then:

$`\dot{H}`$ $`=`$ $`H^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(\rho +3p+3\sigma +2\dot{\varphi }^22V)`$ (5)
$`3H^2`$ $`=`$ $`\rho +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\dot{\varphi }^2+V{\displaystyle \frac{3K}{a^2}}(K=\pm 1,0)`$ (6)
$`\dot{\rho }`$ $`=`$ $`3H(\rho +p+\sigma )`$ (7)
$`\ddot{\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`3H\dot{\varphi }{\displaystyle \frac{dV}{d\varphi }},`$ (8)
where $`H\dot{a}/a`$.

The viscous pressure $`\sigma `$ is assumed to satisfy the truncated Israel-Stewart equation I (7):

$$\sigma +\tau \dot{\sigma }=3\xi H,$$
(9)
where $`\xi `$ is the coefficient of bulk viscosity and $`\tau `$ is the relaxation time ($`\xi >0,\tau >0`$). Strictly speaking, eq. (9) is valid only when the fluid is close to equilibrium; however, we assume its validity even when the fluid is far from equilibrium. (A more rigourous and comprehensive analysis would utilise the full transport equation of the Israel-Stewart theory.) We will assume a linear barotropic equation of state $`p=(\gamma 1)\rho `$, where the constant $`\gamma `$ satisfies $`0<\gamma <2`$ and two different relations for the coefficient of bulk viscosity and relaxation times.

In the first case we consider the following relations:

$$\xi =\alpha \rho ^m,\tau =\frac{\xi }{\rho }=\alpha \rho ^{m1}$$
(10)
which were introduced by Belinskii *et al.* B (12).

We now introduce a new set of normalized variables:

$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{3H^2}},\mathrm{\Sigma }={\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{H^2}},\mathrm{\Psi }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\varphi }}{H}},`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{V}{H^2}},h=H^{12m},m{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},`$ (11)
and a new time $`\tau `$ defined by:

$$H(t)dt=d\tau .$$
(12)
The Friedmann equation (6) now becomes:

$$1\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{\Psi }^2\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{K}{H^2a^2},$$
(13)
and Einstein’s equations are now:

$`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }(3\gamma +2x)\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (14)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`9\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Sigma }\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha }}(3\mathrm{\Omega })^{(1m)}h+2x\right]`$ (15)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x3){\displaystyle \frac{3k}{\sqrt{6}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (16)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(2x+k\sqrt{6}\mathrm{\Psi })`$ (17)
$`h^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(12m)hx`$ (18)
where  denotes derivative with respect to $`\tau `$ and

$$x1+\frac{1}{2}(3\gamma 2)\mathrm{\Omega }+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Sigma }+2\mathrm{\Psi }^2\mathrm{\Gamma }.$$
(19)
When $`m=1/2`$ the equation for $`H`$ decouples from the other equations and the system becomes a four-dimensional system. We will not consider this particular bifurcation situation just yet as it is a special case of the next equation of state considered below.

Before studying the equilibrium points of the above system we present some relevant expressions. The energy density of the scalar field is given by:

$$\rho _\varphi =\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }^2+V=3H^2(\mathrm{\Psi }^2+\mathrm{\Gamma })$$
(20)
and

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi =\frac{\rho _\varphi }{3H^2}=\mathrm{\Psi }^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }.$$
(21)
The adiabatic index of the scalar field is:

$$\gamma _\varphi \frac{\rho _\varphi +p_\varphi }{\rho _\varphi }=\frac{\dot{\varphi }^2}{\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }^2+V}=\frac{2\mathrm{\Psi }^2}{\mathrm{\Psi }^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }}.$$
(22)
The deceleration parameter is given by:

$$q=x1.$$
(23)
We are looking for those equilibrium points that have non vanishing matter and scalar field; i.e., $`\mathrm{\Omega }0`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }0`$. From equation (17) one such point corresponds to:

$$x=k\frac{\sqrt{6}}{2}\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(24)
Equation (18) implies that $`h=0`$ and therefore $`H0`$ when $`m<1/2`$ and $`H\mathrm{}`$ when $`m>1/2`$, as the point is approached. From equation (16) we obtain:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Psi }^2\frac{\sqrt{6}}{k}\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(25)
From equation (15) we obtain:

$$0=9\mathrm{\Omega }+2x\mathrm{\Sigma },\mathrm{\Omega }=k\frac{\sqrt{6}}{9}\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Sigma }.$$
(26)
Substituting this expression in equation (14) we get:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{\sqrt{6}}{4k}\left(\gamma \pm \sqrt{\gamma ^2+4}\right).$$
(27)
Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }>0`$, equation (25) implies that $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ must be negative and therefore only the solution with the minus sign is valid in the above expression. Furthermore, it is easy to see that the condition $`\mathrm{\Psi }<0`$ implies that $`\gamma <3/2`$. Finally, to obtain $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ we substitute equations (24)-(27) into equation (19) and we obtain:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=\frac{9}{\sqrt{6}k}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Psi }}\left(1+\frac{\sqrt{6}}{k}\mathrm{\Psi }\right).$$
(28)
So the equilibrium point is given by:

$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2k^2}}\left(\gamma +\sqrt{\gamma ^2+4}\right)`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6}{\gamma +\sqrt{\gamma ^2+4}}}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2k^2}}\left(\gamma +\sqrt{\gamma ^2+4}\right)\right]`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{6}}{4k}}\left(\gamma +\sqrt{\gamma ^2+4}\right)`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4k^2}}\left[(2\gamma )\left(\gamma +\sqrt{\gamma ^2+4}\right)2\right]`$
$`h`$ $`=`$ $`0,\gamma <{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}.`$ (29)
The energy density of the scalar field is

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi =\mathrm{\Psi }^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{3}{2k^2}\left(\gamma +\sqrt{\gamma ^2+4}\right),\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi =1,$$
(30)
and the adiabatic index is

$$\gamma _\varphi =\frac{2\mathrm{\Psi }^2}{\mathrm{\Psi }^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\gamma +\sqrt{\gamma ^2+4}\right)\gamma .$$
(31)
The deceleration parameter in this case is given by:

$$q=\frac{3}{4}(\gamma +\sqrt{\gamma ^2+4})1>0.$$
(32)
As in the matter scaling solutions, this equilibrium point represents a flat universe in which the energy density of the scalar field scales with that of the matter; however, in these solutions, the adiabatic indexes are different. More importantly: this solution is not accelerating.

The stability of this equilibrium point is determined by the sign of the eigenvalues of the matrix of the linearized system around the point. After a lengthy calculation one can find that three of the eigenvalues are:

$$3\sqrt{\gamma ^2+4},\frac{3}{2}(\gamma +\sqrt{\gamma ^2+4})2,\frac{3}{2}(m\frac{1}{2})(\gamma +\sqrt{\gamma ^2+4}).$$
(33)
The sign of the two first eigenvalues are positive whereas the sign of the third depends on the value of $`m`$. Thus this equilibrium point is not stable. The signs of the two other eigenvalues are difficult to determine.

It is important to note that this is the only equilibrium point with $`\mathrm{\Omega }0`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }0`$. If we relax the last condition we obtain, in addition to the former point, a set of equilibrium points corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0`$; i.e., a massless scalar field. From equation (16) we get $`x=3`$ and from (18) $`h=0`$. From equations (14) and (15) we obtain:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Omega },\gamma =\frac{3}{2}.$$
(34)
And finally from equation (19) we obtain:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Psi }^2=1.$$
(35)
In this case $`\gamma _\varphi =2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi =\mathrm{\Psi }^2`$, ($`\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi =1`$). Again this point is not stable since the eigenvalues of the matrix of the linearised system are:

$$0,6(m\frac{1}{2}),6+\sqrt{6}k\mathrm{\Psi },4,15.$$
(36)
We shall now consider the second case by using the following equations of state:

$$\xi =\xi _0\rho ^mH^{12m},\tau =\tau _0\rho ^{mr}H^{2r2m1},$$
(37)
as used in CvdH (13).

The dynamical system is unchanged except for the evolution equation for the viscous pressure, which now becomes, in terms of the new variables (11)

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}=a\mathrm{\Omega }^r+\mathrm{\Sigma }\left\{b\mathrm{\Omega }^{rm}+2x\right\}$$
(38)
where

$$a=\frac{3^{1+r}\xi _0}{\tau _0},\mathrm{and}b=\frac{3^{rm}}{\tau _0}$$
(39)
replace our original positive constants $`\xi _0`$ and $`\tau _0`$. As in CvdH (13) we take $`r=1`$, and we take $`mr`$ to ensure continuity of (38). Note that as $`H`$ does not appear in this equation the equation for $`h`$ decouples from the rest of the dynamical system and we need only study the resulting four-dimensional system. Note also that when $`m=1/2`$, we have a slight generalisation of the equation of state used above.

There are two equilibrium points which satisfy the requirement $`\mathrm{\Omega }>0,\mathrm{\Gamma }0,`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }0`$. The first has

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }\left(k^2\left(\mathrm{\Omega }1\right)+3\gamma \right)`$ (40)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}k\left(\mathrm{\Omega }1\right)`$ (41)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\mathrm{\Omega }1\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}k^2\left(1\mathrm{\Omega }\right)1\right),`$ (42)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }(0,1)`$ must satisfy

$$\left(k^2\left(\mathrm{\Omega }1\right)+3\gamma \right)\left(b\mathrm{\Omega }^{1m}+k^2\left(\mathrm{\Omega }1\right)\right)a=0$$
(43)
From (42) and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }>0`$ we see that

$$\mathrm{\Omega }>1+\frac{6}{k^2};$$
(44)
hence, from (43), we see that

$$a<3\left(\gamma +2\right)\left(6+b\mathrm{\Omega }^{1m}\right)$$
(45)
must be satisfied for this point to exist.

The scalar field has density parameter and adiabatic index

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi =1\mathrm{\Omega },\gamma _\varphi =\frac{1}{3}k^2\left(1\mathrm{\Omega }\right).$$
(46)
The deceleration parameter is given by

$$q=\frac{1}{2}k^2\left(1\mathrm{\Omega }\right)1=\frac{3}{2}\gamma _\varphi 1.$$
(47)
This equilibrium point will be stable if all the real parts of the eigenvalues of the Jacobian (of the rhs of the dynamical system) are negative. One of the eigenvalues $`\lambda `$ is easy to determine:

$$\lambda =k^2(1\mathrm{\Omega })2=2q;$$
(48)
thus if this point is not inflationary it will not be stable either. The remaining eigenvalues may be determined but the resulting expressions are extremely large. Therefore we will present the results for this point graphically, in figures (1) – (4). As we only wish to qualitatively show the different behaviour which may occur, we only show a few representative cases, and show the variation of behaviour with the parameter $`a`$. (Recall that $`\tau _0=3^{1m}/b`$, and $`\xi _0=a/3^{1+m}b`$.) The effect of increasing $`b`$ may be seen from the figures: for small $`b`$ (Fig. 1) the upper curve (high density solution) is stable (as $`a`$ is increased) until $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ is reached at $`a3`$ \[for $`a`$ larger than this the high density solution no longer exists; cf. Eq. (45)\]; similarly for $`b=5`$ (Fig. 2), once the upper curve becomes stable (as $`a`$ is increased) at $`a2`$, it remains so until $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$, which happens in this case at about $`a14`$. For the case $`b=10`$ (Fig. 3), the higher density solution becomes stable at $`a6`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ is reached at $`a30`$. The lower density solution appears never to be stable.

In the figures, we have arbitrarily set $`\gamma =1`$, $`m=0.5`$, and $`k=2`$. The effect of increasing $`\gamma `$ or $`m`$ is to push the curves down to lower $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (the lower density solution eventually drops off the plots); this does not change the conclusions. Lowering the value of $`m`$ allows the solution to become stable for smaller $`a`$ (while pushing the curves up to higher $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$); e.g., in figure (2) with $`m=0.1`$, the upper curve becomes red (stable) before $`a=1`$. The effect of changing $`k`$ is shown in figure (4).

The important point here is that stable solutions exist for a large non-trivial region of the five-dimensional parameter space $`\{a,b,m,k,\gamma \}`$ of the models.

The other equilibrium point of interest here is characterised by the following (when $`m1`$) :

$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{b\left(3\gamma 2\right)}{a+2\left(3\gamma 2\right)}}\right)^{\frac{1}{m1}},`$ (49)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }\left(3\gamma 2\right),`$ (50)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{6}}{3k}},`$ (51)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3k^2}}.`$ (52)
For this point

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi =\frac{2}{k^2},\gamma _\varphi =\frac{2}{3},q=0.$$
(53)
Therefore this point is not inflationary. However, this point in general has non-zero curvature. The stability of this point is difficult to determine analytically, so again we present the results graphically in figure (5). Again we see that there exist stable solutions.

This graph (5) suggests that, for these parameter values, all solutions with $`\mathrm{\Omega }>0.5`$ are unstable, a fact implied by further investigations (although the limiting value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ depends on $`k`$: indeed for high $`k`$ there are no *unstable* solutions). This then suggests that the stability of the solution depends on the curvature: for $`\mathrm{\Omega }<\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi =2/k^2(=0.5`$ in figure (5)) we have the stable solutions, and these have negative curvature, by (13).

For the previous two points we have demonstrated the existence of stable solutions; however, we ignored the traditional thermodynamical assumption that the magnitude of the viscosity must be less than the isotropic pressure (we neglected this in the figures by setting $`\gamma =1`$). However, we note that this does not affect the result. (So, e.g., in the latter equilibrium point this requirement would set $`\frac{1}{2}<\gamma <\frac{3}{4}`$; stable solutions exist in this case too.)

Finally, if we relax our restriction that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }0`$, we have another two equilibrium points, given by (when $`m1`$)

$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{3b(\gamma 2)}{a+18(\gamma 2)}}\right)^{\frac{1}{m1}},`$ (54)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`3\mathrm{\Omega }(2\gamma ),`$ (55)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }^2`$ $`=`$ $`1\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi .`$ (56)
For this point $`q=2,`$ and $`\gamma _\varphi =2`$, so it is not inflationary. Three of the eigenvalues are

$$4,3(2m1),6+\sqrt{6}k\mathrm{\Psi };$$
(57)
hence this point is not stable.

We have shown that the equations of state play a crucial role in the final evolution of non-perfect fluids with a scalar field. Therefore the claim that a dissipative fluid minimally coupled with a scalar field can resolve the coincidence problem, although suggestive, depends dramatically of the equations of state and on the parameters associated with them.