text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In string theories the study of the solution spectrum for their effective field theory limits plays an important role , , , . This study includes both a straightforward construction of new solutions , , , ,   and various applications of symmetry based generation procedures , , . The subject of this paper is related to the former approach; in fact we propose a new possibility of generating string theory solutions in an explicitly symmetry invariant form starting from the well studied system of Einstein-Maxwell fields (see  and the references therein). Namely, we indicate a surprising possibility of extending the static solutions of the Einstein-Maxwell theory to the realm of both the four-dimensional heterotic string theory with one vector field , , ,  and the five-dimensional bosonic string theory .

These two theories can be considered together when studying their extremal Israel-Wilson-Perjes type solutions ; in this paper we present the continuous generalization of the corresponding results to the field of non-extremal solutions. We show that both the extremal and non-extremal solution subspaces can be represented in the remarkable Einstein-Maxwell form. We explore the close analogy between the heterotic (bosonic) string theory and the Einstein-Maxwell system  as some clear leading principle in the study of the two concrete string theories mentioned above. We also perform a consistent charging symmetry invariant reduction of the string theory inspired static Einstein-Maxwell system to the effective three-dimensional Einstein-dilaton theory – a procedure which relates, for example, the Schwarzshild black hole solution to the Nordstrom-Reissner one .

The black hole physics seems to be the most promising field of applications of the new approach developed in this article. This statement is based, from one side, on its hidden symmetry invariant property, which leads to the construction of symmetry non-generalizeble asymptotically flat classes of solution, and, from the other side, on its close relation to the well studied field of classical black hole solutions in Einstein-Maxwell theory . The answer to the natural question about the extension of this new approach to the case of string theories with $`d+n>2`$ will be given in a forthcoming publication . The experience obtained in the field of extremal solutions  leads to the separation of all these effective string theories (with arbitrary values of $`d`$ and $`n`$, excepting the case of $`d=1`$, $`n=0`$ which does not possess extremal solutions and is equivalent to a double General Relativity system in the stationary case) in two classes: the first class contains the two special theories under consideration (with $`d+n=2`$), whereas the second one encloses all the remaining theories (with $`d+n>2`$). In fact, the latter systems can also be incorporated into the approach developed below after some simple but important modifications of the presented formalism.

## 2 3D heterotic string theory: review of new formalism

In this paper we actively explore a new formalism developed in details in  for the general case of the $`D`$-dimensional low-energy heterotic string theory with $`n`$ Abelian gauge fields (the bosonic string theory corresponds to the special case of $`n=0`$). We consider the toroidal compactification of this theory to three spatial dimensions originally performed in  and settled in a convenient form in ,  and . Let us briefly review some elements of this new formalism which are necessary for the further analysis.

Thus, we start with the action for the bosonic sector of the low-energy heterotic string theory :

$`𝒮_D={\displaystyle d^DX|\mathrm{det}G_{MN}|^{\frac{1}{2}}e^\mathrm{\Phi }\left(R_D+\mathrm{\Phi }_{,M}\mathrm{\Phi }^{,M}\frac{1}{12}H_{MNK}H^{MNK}\frac{1}{4}F_{MN}^IF^{IMN}\right)},`$ (2.1)
where $`H_{MNK}=_MB_{NK}\frac{1}{2}A_M^IF_{NK}^I+\mathrm{cyclic}\{M,N,K\}`$ and $`F_{MN}^I=_MA_N^I_NA_M^I`$. Here $`X^M`$ is the M-th $`(M=1,\mathrm{},D)`$ coordinate of the physical space-time of signature $`(,+,\mathrm{},+)`$, $`G_{MN}`$ is the metric, whereas $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, $`B_{MN}`$ and $`A_M^I`$$`(I=1,\mathrm{},n)`$ are the dilaton, Kalb-Ramond and Abelian gauge fields, respectively. To determine the result of the toroidal compactification to three dimensions, let us put $`D=d+3`$, $`X^M=(Y^m,x^\mu )`$ with $`Y^M=X^m`$$`(m=1,\mathrm{},d)`$ and $`x^\mu =X^{d+\mu }`$$`(\mu =1,2,3)`$ and introduce the $`d\times d`$ matrix $`G_0=\mathrm{diag}(1;1,\mathrm{},1)`$, the $`(d+1)\times (d+1)`$ and $`(d+1+n)\times (d+1+n)`$ matrices $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ of the form $`\mathrm{diag}(1,1;1,\mathrm{},1)`$, respectively, and the $`(d+1)\times (d+1+n)`$ matrix field $`𝒵=𝒵(x^\lambda )`$ together with the three-metric $`h_{\mu \nu }=h_{\mu \nu }(x^\lambda )`$. In  it was shown that the resulting theory after the toroidal compactification of the first $`d`$ dimensions $`Y^m`$ can be expressed in terms of the pair $`(𝒵,h_{\mu \nu })`$; its effective dynamics is given by the action

$`𝒮_3={\displaystyle d^3xh^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(R_3+L_3\right)},`$ (2.2)
where $`R_3=R_3(h_{\mu \nu )}`$ is the curvature scalar for the three-dimensional line element $`ds_3^2=h_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu `$ and

$`L_3=\mathrm{Tr}\left[𝒵\left(\mathrm{\Xi }𝒵^T\mathrm{\Sigma }𝒵\right)^1𝒵^T\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }𝒵\mathrm{\Xi }𝒵^T\right)^1\right].`$ (2.3)
It is important to note that in the present notations $`Y^1`$ corresponds to time, thus, we consider stationary equations of motion and $`x^\mu `$ are the coordinates on the Riemannian three-dimensional space. To translate this ($`\sigma `$-model) description into the language of the field components of the heterotic string theory, let us introduce three doublets of $`(𝒵,h_{\mu \nu })`$-related potentials $`(_\alpha ,\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\alpha )`$$`(\alpha =1,2,3)`$ according to the relations

$`_1=^1,\times \stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1=\stackrel{}{J},`$
$`_2=^1𝒵,\times \stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2=^1𝒵\stackrel{}{J}𝒵,`$
$`_3=𝒵^T^1𝒵,\times \stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_3=𝒵^T^1𝒵𝒵^T^1𝒵+𝒵^T\stackrel{}{J}𝒵,`$ (2.4)
where $`=\mathrm{\Sigma }𝒵\mathrm{\Xi }𝒵^T`$ and $`\stackrel{}{J}=^1\left(𝒵\mathrm{\Xi }𝒵^T𝒵\mathrm{\Xi }𝒵^T\right)^1`$. In Eq. (2) the scalars $`_\alpha `$ are off-shell quantities, whereas the vectors $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\alpha `$ are defined on-shell. The scalar and vector potentials forming any doublet have the same matrix dimensionalities; let us represent them in the following block form

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}1\times 1& 1\times d\\ d\times 1& d\times d\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1\times 1& 1\times d& 1\times n\\ d\times 1& d\times d& d\times n\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1\times 1& 1\times d& 1\times n\\ d\times 1& d\times d& d\times n\\ n\times 1& n\times d& n\times n\end{array}\right)`$ (2.12)
for $`a=1,2,3`$ respectively, where, for example, the ‘$`13`$’ block components of the potentials $`_2`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2`$ are $`1\times n`$ matrices. Afterwards, let us define the following set of scalar and vector quantities:

$`S_0=_{1,11}+2_{2,11}_{3,11},`$
$`S_1=G_0_{1,22}G_0+G_0_{2,22}+(_{2,22})^TG_0+_{3,22}+S_0^1[_{1,12}G_0_{2,12}+`$
$`+(_{2,21})^TG_0+_{3,12}\left]^T\right[_{1,12}G_0_{2,12}+(_{2,21})^TG_0+_{3,12}],`$
$`S_2=G_0_{1,22}G_0_{2,22}G_0+(_{2,22})^T_{3,22}G_01+S_0^1[_{1,12}G_0_{2,12}+`$
$`+(_{2,21})^TG_0+_{3,12}\left]^T\right[_{1,12}_{2,12}G_0+(_{2,21})^T_{3,12}G_0],`$
$`S_3=\sqrt{2}[G_0_{2,23}+_{3,23}+S_0^1(_{1,12}G_0_{2,12}+(_{2,21})^TG_0+_{3,12})^T\times `$
$`\times (_{2,13}+_{3,13})];`$ (2.13)
$`\stackrel{}{V}_1=\left[\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{1,12}G_0+\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{2,12}+(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{2,21})^TG_0+\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{3,12}\right]^T,`$
$`\stackrel{}{V}_2=\left[\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{1,12}G_0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{2,12}G_0+(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{2,21})^T\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{3,12}G_0\right]^T,`$
$`\stackrel{}{V}_3=\sqrt{2}\left(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{2,13}+\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{3,13}\right)^T.`$
In terms of them the heterotic string theory fields read :

$`ds_D^2=ds_{d+3}^2=(dY+V_{1\mu }dx^\mu )^TS_1^1(dY+V_{1\nu }dx^\nu )+S_0ds_3^2,`$
$`e^\mathrm{\Phi }=\left|S_0\mathrm{det}S_1\right|^{\frac{1}{2}},`$
$`B_{mk}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(S_1^1S_2S_2^TS_1^1\right)_{mk},`$
$`B_{md+\nu }=\left\{V_{2\nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(S_1^1S_2S_2^TS_1^1\right)V_{1\nu }S_1^1S_3V_{3\nu }\right\}_m,`$
$`B_{d+\mu d+\nu }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[V_{1\mu }^T\left(S_1^1S_2S_2^TS_1^1\right)V_{1\nu }+V_{1\mu }^TV_{2\nu }V_{1\nu }^TV_{2\mu }\right],`$
$`A_m^I=\left(S_1^1S_3\right)_{mI},`$
$`A_{d+\mu }^I=\left(V_{3\mu }+S_3^TS_1^1V_{1\mu }\right)_I.`$ (2.14)
At the end of this section we would like to make two remarks. The first one concerns the procedure of constructing the solutions and their final representation; namely, it is convenient to perform the basic construction of the solution in terms of $`𝒵`$ and $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ and leave the result in the (2) form giving explicit expressions for the quantities $`S_\alpha ,\stackrel{}{V}_\alpha `$ and $`S_0,S_1^1,\mathrm{det}S_1`$. The second one is related to the hidden symmetries of the compactified theory (2.2)-(2.3). It is easy to see that the transformation

$`𝒵C_1𝒵C_2`$ (2.15)
is a symmetry if $`C_1^T\mathrm{\Sigma }C_1=\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`C_2^T\mathrm{\Xi }C_2=\mathrm{\Xi }`$. In  and  it was shown that this symmetry coincides with the total group of the three-dimensional charging symmetries of the theory. This group does not affect the trivial spatial asymptotics of the fields and forms the base for the three-dimensional generation technique of asymptotically flat solutions of the theory. The $`𝒵`$-representation, being the matrix potential representation with the lowest possible matrix dimensionality (the $`\sigma `$-model (2.2)-(2.3) is in fact a symmetric space model parameterizing the coset $`O(d+1,d+1+n)/O(d+1)\times O(d+1+n)`$, see  and ) provides a linear realization of the charging symmetry transformations. These facts allow one to construct asymptotically flat classes of solutions in an explicitly charging symmetry invariant form. In the next sections we give concrete illustrations to the remarks formulated above.

## 3 String theories from static Einstein-Maxwell system

As it was pointed out in the Introduction, the close analogy between the heterotic (bosonic) and the Einstein-Maxwell theories will be used as certain underlying principle in the study of the two concrete string theories under consideration. This analogy, or correspondence, was originally indicated in ; its explicit off- and on-shell status was established in , whereas some natural applications were given in ,  and . To formulate the correspondence in appropriate terms, let us represent the Einstein-Maxwell theory in a form very similar to the heterotic (bosonic) string theory one (2.2)-(2.3). Namely, let $`E`$ and $`F`$ be the conventional Ernst potentials of the stationary Einstein-Maxwell theory . Let us express the corresponding three-dimensional Lagrangian

$`L_3=L_{EM}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2f^2}}\left|E\overline{F}F\right|^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f}}\left|F\right|^2,`$ (3.1)
where $`f=\frac{1}{2}(E+\overline{E}|F|^2)`$, in terms of the $`1\times 2`$ complex potential $`z`$ with

$`z=(z_1z_2)`$ (3.2)
and (compare with )

$`z_1={\displaystyle \frac{1E}{1+E}},z_2={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}F}{1+E}}.`$ (3.3)
The result reads:

$`L_{EM}=2{\displaystyle \frac{z(\sigma _3z^+z)^1z^+}{1z\sigma _3z^+}},`$ (3.4)
where $`\sigma _3=\mathrm{diag}(11)`$. Now, comparing Eqs. (2.3) and (3.4), it is easy to see that the map

$`𝒵z,\mathrm{\Xi }\sigma _3,\mathrm{\Sigma }1,`$ (3.5)
together with the operation interchange $`{}_{}{}^{T}_{}^{+}`$, relates the heterotic (bosonic) and Einstein-Maxwell theories up to the factor ‘2’. However, this factor becomes necessary when considering the explicit on-shell realization of the correspondence (3.5) for the string theories with $`d+n>2`$. Namely, it is possible to identify the Einstein-Maxwell theory with some special truncation of the string theory with $`d=1`$ and $`n=2`$ , and after that, to extend this result to the case of an arbitrary theory with $`d+n>2`$ in a charging symmetry invariant form using the projectional formalism developed in . The above mentioned special truncation is in fact a consistent ansatz with the $`2\times 4`$ potential $`𝒵_{}`$ parameterized as

$`𝒵_{}=(𝒵_1𝒵_2)`$ (3.6)
where the block components $`𝒵_a`$ ($`a=1,2`$) are taken in the form

$`𝒵_a=\left(\begin{array}{cc}z_a^{^{}}& z_a^{^{\prime \prime }}\\ z_a^{^{\prime \prime }}& z_a^{^{}}\end{array}\right),`$ (3.9)
and the complex functions $`z_a=z_a^{^{}}+iz_a^{^{\prime \prime }}`$ correspond to Eq. (3.2). The statement is that in this special case, the heterotic string and the Einstein-Maxwell theories coincide on-shell; in particular the Lagrangians (2.3) and (3.4) are equal if Eqs. (3.6) and (3.9) take place. Finally, the extension of stationary Einstein-Maxwell theory to the case of heterotic string theory with $`d+n>2`$ is given by the map

$`𝒵_{}𝒵=L𝒵_{}R^T,`$ (3.10)
where $`L^T\mathrm{\Sigma }L=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{},R^T\mathrm{\Xi }R=\mathrm{\Xi }_{}`$ and the matrices $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{},\mathrm{\Xi }_{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma },\mathrm{\Xi }`$ correspond to the theories with $`𝒵_{}`$ and $`𝒵`$, respectively. It is easy to see that for the two exceptional string theories with $`d+n=2`$ this exact on-shell realization (3.6)-(3.10) of the correspondence (3.5) becomes impossible, thus, in this case the relations (3.5) possess a formal character. However, as it is shown below, a surprising on-shell correspondence between the string theories with $`d+n=2`$ and the Einstein-Maxwell system nevertheless exists if we appropriately truncate both the string and Einstein-Maxwell theories.

The necessary truncation naturally arises in the framework of the continuous generalization of the general extremal Israel-Wilson-Perjes class of solutions established for the string theories with arbitrary values of the parameters $`d`$ and $`n`$ in . This class can be represented in terms of the ansatz

$`𝒵=\mathrm{\Lambda }𝒬,`$ (3.11)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a $`(d+1)\times 1`$ matrix function and $`𝒬`$ stands for a $`1\times 3`$ constant matrix parameter for the theories with $`d+n=2`$. The class of extremal Israel-Wilson-Perjes solutions arises when the (numerical) parameter $`\kappa `$, defined by the relation

$`\kappa =𝒬\mathrm{\Xi }𝒬^T,`$ (3.12)
vanishes, the dynamical quantity $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is harmonic and the three-metric $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ is flat. In the Einstein-Maxwell theory the situation is extremely similar to this one according to the correspondence rule (3.5): the ansatz $`z=\lambda q`$, where $`\lambda `$ is a complex function and $`q`$ is a $`1\times 2`$ constant complex parameter, gives the conventional Israel-Wilson-Perjes class of solutions if the parameter $`\kappa =q\sigma _3q^+`$ iz zero, $`\lambda `$ is harmonic and the three-metric is again flat. The consideration of this ansatz in the case of an arbitrary value of $`\kappa `$ naturally leads to a continuous generalization of the extremal class of Israel-Wilson-Perjes solutions to non-extremal classes. In the framework of this continuous extension, both extremal and non-extremal Kerr-Newman-NUT solutions with the electric and magnetic charges belong to the same family of solutions. The main idea of this article is to perform the corresponding continuous generalization of extremal classes of solutions for string theories with $`d+n=2`$ to non-extremal ones by considering the ansatz (3.11) with a non-zero value of the parameter $`\kappa `$ (3.12).

This consideration must be performed on-shell. The straightforward substitution of the ansatz (3.11) into the equations of motion derived from Eqs. (2.2) and (2.3), leads to the following system of equations:

$`^2\mathrm{\Lambda }+2\kappa \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }^T\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\kappa \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }^T\right)^1\mathrm{\Lambda }=0,`$
$`R_{3\mu \nu }=\kappa \mathrm{Tr}\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }_{,(\mu }\left(1\kappa \mathrm{\Lambda }^T\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)^1\mathrm{\Lambda }_{,\nu )}^T\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\kappa \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }^T\right)^1\right].`$ (3.13)
It is clear that in the case $`\kappa =0`$ we come back to the extremal case studied in , whereas for $`\kappa 0`$ we have the above announced continuous extension of the formalism to the non-extremal case. Below, in this section, we study the situation in which $`\kappa 0`$; here the equations (3) correspond to the effective Lagrangian

$`L_{eff}=\kappa \mathrm{Tr}\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(1\kappa \mathrm{\Lambda }^T\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)^1\mathrm{\Lambda }^T\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\kappa \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }^T\right)^1\right].`$ (3.14)
This Lagrangian has a quasi string theory form. To clarify this statement, let us introduce the new dynamical variable

$`\zeta =\left(\kappa \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^T`$ (3.15)
and consider the special case $`\kappa <0`$. Let us also unify the two constrained string theories, i.e. the $`d=n=1`$ and $`d=2,n=0`$ models restricted by Eq. (3.11), into a single construction, which in fact will correspond to the former system. For this system $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Xi }=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1)`$ and $`\zeta =(\zeta _1,\zeta _2,\zeta _3)`$. An evident statement is that the latter system arises in the special case when $`\zeta _3=0`$. Thus, it is possible to consider the $`d=n=1`$ heterotic string theory ansatz as a (consistent) subsystem of the $`d=2,n=0`$ bosonic string theory one. Finally, both systems are simultaneously described by a single effective theory which, however, is not exactly of the form (2.3) in view of the fact that the string matrix potential $`𝒵`$ must contain at least two rows. Interestingly, both these problems can be solved by the formal introduction of the following $`2\times 3`$ potential

$`𝒵=\left(\begin{array}{c}\zeta \\ 0\end{array}\right)`$ (3.18)
together with the corresponding matrices $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$. In these terms the effective theory takes the form of Eq. (2.3) and can be interpreted in the framework of the $`d=n=1`$ heterotic string theory restricted by the relation (3.18) which is a consistent ansatz for the $`d=n=1`$ theory.

Now it is possible to apply the Ernst matrix potential approach  to obtain an appropriate interpretation of this effective theory in terms of the well known classical systems of gravity. This approach is based on the use of a pair of Ernst matrix potentials $`𝒳`$ and $`𝒜`$ defined by the relations

$`𝒳=2\left(𝒵_1+\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)^1\mathrm{\Sigma },𝒜=\sqrt{2}\left(𝒵_1+\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)^1𝒵_2,`$ (3.19)
where $`𝒵=(𝒵_1𝒵_2)`$, compare to Eqs. (3.6)-(3.9). In terms of these potentials the Lagrangian (2.3) takes the form

$`L_3=\mathrm{Tr}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(𝒳𝒜𝒜^T\right)𝒢^1\left(𝒳^T𝒜𝒜^T\right)𝒢^1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝒢^1𝒜𝒜^T\right],`$ (3.20)
where $`𝒢=\frac{1}{2}(𝒳+𝒳^T𝒜𝒜^T)`$. By substituting (3.18) into (3.19) and then performing the calculations, we arrive to the effective Lagrangian

$`L_{eff}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4^2}}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{}}\left(𝒱^2𝒰^2\right),`$ (3.21)
where the scalar potentials $`,𝒱`$ and $`𝒰`$ are

$`={\displaystyle \frac{1\zeta _1^2\zeta _2^2+\zeta _3^2}{(1\zeta _1)^2}},𝒱={\displaystyle \frac{\zeta _2}{1\zeta _1}},𝒰={\displaystyle \frac{\zeta _3}{1\zeta _1}}.`$ (3.22)
A classical interpretation of the effective theory is now clear: the quantity $`||`$ can be considered as the $`G_{tt}`$ component of the static Einstein-Maxwell theory, whereas $`\sqrt{2}𝒱`$ and $`\sqrt{2}𝒰`$, as the electric and/or magnetic potentials of that theory. Thus, in the framework of this interpretation one immediately obtains

$`L_{eff}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}L_{EM},`$ (3.23)
where $`L_{EM}`$ is the corresponding Einstein-Maxwell Lagrangian in the static case. Note that for $`>0`$ ($`<0`$) the potential $`𝒱`$ ($`𝒰`$) must be imaginary and $`𝒰`$ ($`𝒱`$) must be real in order to perform such identification. One also must remember that for the $`d=n=1`$ theory $`𝒰=0`$, whereas for the $`d=2`$, $`n=0`$ model this dynamical variable is not restricted. Let us now considrer the case $`𝒰=0`$ for both string theories. If $`<0`$ we have the conventional interpretation of the effective theory in terms of the static electric (magnetic) Einstein-Maxwell system; if $`>0`$ the potential $`𝒱`$ becomes essentially imaginary. Actually, the conventional static Einstein-Maxwell theory with either electric or magnetic potential corresponds to an indefinite $`\sigma `$–model, whereas the case under consideration ($`>0`$), to a positive definite one.

An interpretation of the effective theory with $`𝒰=0`$ and $`>0`$ in terms of well known gravity models with strictly real fields takes place when one identifies $`^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ and $`𝒱`$ with the $`G_{tt}`$ and the rotational metric component, respectively. In turns out that in this case one can establish the following relationship

$`L_{eff}=2L_{GR},`$ (3.24)
where $`L_{GR}`$ is the conventional Lagrangian of stationary General Relativity. Note that the two special cases considered above (with negative and positive values of $``$) are related by the map

$`^{\frac{1}{2}},𝒱i𝒱,`$ (3.25)
which is nothing else than the classical Bonnor transformation . A last remark related to the factors ‘$`\frac{1}{2}`$’ and ‘2’ is in order: when considering the axisymmetric theory these factors lead to the maps $`\gamma \frac{1}{2}\gamma `$ and $`\gamma 2\gamma `$, respectively, where $`\gamma =\gamma (\rho ,z)`$ enters the line element in the Lewis–Papapetrou form

$`ds_3^2=e^\gamma \left(d\rho ^2+dz^2\right)+\rho ^2d\phi ^2;`$ (3.26)
thus, such maps do not affect our identifications.

At the end of this section let us establish all the hidden symmetries of the effective theory (3.17). In order to do this, let us introduce the $`2\times 2`$ matrix

$`M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}f^1& f^1\chi _r\\ f^1\chi _l& f+f^1\chi _l\chi _r\end{array}\right),`$ (3.29)
where $`f=||^{\frac{1}{2}}`$, $`\chi _r=𝒱+𝒰`$ and $`\chi _l=\mathrm{sign}()(𝒱𝒰)`$. It is easy to see that this matrix parametrizes the group $`SL(2,𝐑)`$; a less obvious fact is that

$`L_{eff}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Tr\left(MM^1\right)^2,`$ (3.30)
i.e., our complete ($`𝒰0`$) effective theory (3.17) coincides with the $`SL(2,𝐑)`$ principal chiral model coupled to gravity. From this fact it immediately follows that the group of symmetry transformations acts as

$`MC_l^TMC_r,`$ (3.31)
where the unimodular constant matrices $`C_{l,r}`$ can be obtained from $`M`$ by making use of the substitutions $`fs_{l,r}`$, $`\chi _l\beta _{l,r}`$ and $`\chi _r\alpha _{l,r}`$. It is worth noticing that the transformations $`C_l`$ and $`C_r`$ are independent each other, thus, there is no relation between the $`l`$ and $`r`$ labeled constant parameters $`s_{l,r}`$, $`\alpha _{l,r}`$ and $`\beta _{l,r}`$. For example, one can fix $`C_l=1`$ and then write down the transformations that correspond to the parameters $`s_r`$, $`\alpha _r`$ and $`\beta _r`$; the result reads:

$`fs_rf,\chi _rs_r^2\chi _r,\chi _l\chi _l;`$ (3.32)
$`ff,\chi _r\chi _r+\alpha _r,\chi _l\chi _l;`$ (3.33)
$`f{\displaystyle \frac{f}{1+\beta _r\chi _r}},\chi _r{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _r}{1+\beta _r\chi _r}},\chi _l{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _l+\beta _r\left(f^2+\chi _l\chi _r\right)}{1+\beta _r\chi _r}}.`$ (3.34)
Here the transformation (3.26) plays the role of scaling, whereas (3.27) and (3.28) are shift and Ehlers–type maps, respectively. Of course the matrix $`C_r`$ generates the transformations which can be obtained from (3.26)–(3.28) using the interchange $`rl`$ in these relations.

Let us now discuss the special case corresponding to the subgroup of charging symmetry transformatoins. This subgroup preserves the trivial solution of the theory under consideration. Such a solution corresponds to the matrix $`M=M_0=1`$ since for this special value one obtains $`𝒵_0=0`$ (see Eqs. (3.13)–(3.14),(3.18) and (3.23)). Thus, for the subgroup of charging symmetries one obtains $`C_l=C_r^{T1}`$ from Eq. (3.31), or, in terms of the corresponding parameters

$`s_l={\displaystyle \frac{s_r}{s_r^2+\alpha _r\beta _r}},\alpha _l={\displaystyle \frac{\beta _r}{s_r^2+\alpha _r\beta _r}},\beta _l={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _r}{s_r^2+\alpha _r\beta _r}}.`$ (3.35)
Some remarks on the $`d=n=1`$ string theory are in order. It is clear that the effective theory with $`𝒰0`$ corresponds to the string theory with $`d=2`$ and $`n=0`$. The theory with $`d=n=1`$ implies $`𝒰0`$, which in turn leads to $`\chi _l=\chi _r\chi `$, and thus, $`M=M^T`$ when $`>0`$. Thus, we deal with the symmetric space model $`SL(2,𝐑)/SO(2)`$ coupled to gravity which is, in fact, equivalent to the stationary General Relativity theory up to a factor ‘2’ as it was explained above. The transformation rule (3.31) must preserve the symmetric property of $`M`$, this implies that $`C_l=C_rCSL(2,𝐑)`$. For these symmetric space the parameters $`s_l=s_rs`$, $`\alpha _l=\alpha _r\alpha `$ and $`\beta _l=\beta _r\beta `$ define the conventional scaling, shift and Ehlers maps. On the other hand, the one–parameter charging symmetry subgroup is given by the transformation

$`ze^{iϵ}z,`$ (3.36)
where $`z=\frac{1}{1+}`$, $`=f+i\chi `$, $`ϵ=2\mathrm{arctan}\beta `$ (the remaining parameters are related to $`\beta `$ as follows $`\alpha =\beta `$ and $`s=\sqrt{1+\beta ^2}`$).

We hope to use the principle chiral model (3.23)–(3.24) for the generation of new solutions in a forthcoming article. In the next section we perform a further reduction of the effective theory (3.17) to the $`\sigma `$–model with a single dynamical variable in a charging symmetry invariant form. Our goal is to obtain an effective dilaton gravity system with arbitrary coupling which allows one to consider the general field configurations of Nordstrom–Reissner type in both the $`d=2`$, $`n=0`$ and the $`d=n=1`$ string theories.

## 4 Explicit solutions via 3D dilaton gravity

In order to perform this truncation in the most general form, let us come back to Eq. (3) and consider the new consistent ansatz

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Psi }𝒫^T,`$ (4.1)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a dynamical function and $`𝒫`$ is a $`1\times (d+1)`$ constant row. The resulting system of equations of motion reads:

$`^2\varphi =0,`$
$`R_{3\mu \nu }=\sigma \varphi _{,\mu }\varphi _{,\nu },`$ (4.2)
where we have set $`\sigma =\tau \kappa `$,

$`\tau =𝒫\mathrm{\Sigma }𝒫^T`$ (4.3)
and

$`\mathrm{\Psi }={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tanh}(\sigma ^{\frac{1}{2}}\varphi )}{\sigma ^{\frac{1}{2}}}}.`$ (4.4)
The parameter $`\sigma `$ plays the role of the dilaton-gravity coupling; we identify the field $`\varphi `$ with the effective three-dimensional dilaton interacting with the three-metric field $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ according to the equations (4). Note that, in general, $`\sigma `$ has arbitrary sign and for any sign of $`\sigma `$ the relation (4.4) is real. Namely, for $`\sigma =0`$ we understand Eq. (4.4) in the sense of the limit procedure, thus, in this case $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\varphi `$; for $`\sigma <0`$ Eq. (4.4) can be rewritten as $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{\mathrm{tan}\left((\sigma )^{\frac{1}{2}}\varphi \right)}{(\sigma )^{\frac{1}{2}}}`$. In this section we shall construct solutions for the $`d=n=1`$ and $`d=2,n=0`$ string theories as extensions of an arbitrary solution $`(\varphi ,h_{\mu \nu })`$ of this effective dilaton gravity system. Our extensions will preserve the asymptotical triviality of the seed solutions in the following sense: dilaton gravity solutions with Coulomb behavior at spatial infinity are mapped to string theory solutions possessing the same underlying property. This means that we must perform our extension procedure in such a way that all possible Dirac string peculiarities, which naturally arise in the framework of any more or less general symmetry based solution-constructing technique, will vanish. For example, in General Relativity the Ehlers symmetry transformation  generates the parameter NUT from the asymptotically trivial Schwarzshild solution; the resulting family of Taub-NUT solutions  possesses a Dirac string peculiarity of rotational type. In the pure General Relativity it is impossible to specify the generation procedure in the above mentioned sense because, in fact, there exists only a one-parametric charging symmetry transformation whose ‘specification’ leads to an identical map. This transformation coincides with the Ehlers symmetry which must be ‘normalized’ to preserve the asymptotical flatness property, see, for example, , where this material together with its straightforward generalization to the string theory case is considered in details. Note that in our approach all the classical nonlinear symmetries (like the Ehlers and Harrison transformations) arise in a matrix-valued framework; nevertheless it is possible to identify some string theory symmetries as the Harrison and Ehlers maps in the conventional non-matrix sense, see , . It is clear that in the string theories under consideration the group of charging symmetries has a much more rich structure ; moreover, it is possibile to relate different string theories labeled by distinct values of the parameters $`d`$ and $`n`$ in a charging symmetry invariant form . All these facts allows one to realize the above mentioned extension program not only in the case of the two special string theories under consideration, but also for the general case. Below we give the corresponding results for the $`d=n=1`$ and $`d=2,n=0`$ theories.

The concrete asymptotically trivial and charged dilaton gravity solution of Nordstrom -Reissner type reads

$`\varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\sigma ^{\frac{1}{2}}}}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{R+m\sigma ^{\frac{1}{2}}}{Rm\sigma ^{\frac{1}{2}}}}\right),`$
$`ds_3^2=dR^2+(R^2\sigma m^2)(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2),`$ (4.5)
where $`m`$ is an arbitrary real parameter. We note again that the $`\varphi `$-relation in Eq. (4) is real and well defined for the arbitrary sign of $`\sigma `$: if $`\sigma =0`$ then $`\varphi =\frac{\sqrt{2}m}{R}`$; for $`\sigma <0`$ one also has from Eq. (4) that $`\varphi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}(\sigma )^{\frac{1}{2}}}\mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{2m(\sigma )^{\frac{1}{2}}R}{R^2+m^2\sigma }\right)`$. Thus, Eqs. (4.1), (4.4) and (4) give a correct solution of Eqs. (3) which have, as it is easy to see, the standard monopole behavior at spatial infinity. From Eqs. (4.4) and (4) it follows that the parameter $`\sqrt{2}m`$ plays the role of the formal Coulomb charge of this solution. The solution (4) gives a concrete realization of the on–shell field configurations of the general charged dilaton gravity with the trivial asymptotics at spatial infinity. In principle, our further analysis can be related to such general asymptotically flat solutions. However, we shall take into account just the special class of solutions corresponding to the Nordstrom-Reissner one.

Our next step is to calculate the matrix potentials $`_\alpha `$ and $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\alpha `$ according to Eq. (2). In order to get the more symmetric form of the resulting formulas let us redefine the parameter $`𝒫`$ as $`𝒫𝒫\mathrm{\Sigma }`$; this map preserves the $`\tau `$-value, see Eq. (4.3). The result reads:

$`_1=\mathrm{\Sigma }+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}^2\left(\sigma ^{\frac{1}{2}}\varphi \right)}{\tau }}𝒫^T𝒫,\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1=0;`$
$`_2={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}\left(\sigma ^{\frac{1}{2}}\varphi \right)\mathrm{cosh}\left(\sigma ^{\frac{1}{2}}\varphi \right)}{\sigma ^{\frac{1}{2}}}}𝒫^T𝒬,\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2=\stackrel{}{\omega }𝒫^T𝒬;`$
$`_3={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}^2\left(\sigma ^{\frac{1}{2}}\varphi \right)}{\kappa }}𝒬^T𝒬,\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_3=0,`$ (4.6)
where the vector function $`\stackrel{}{\omega }`$ is defined on–shell by the relation

$`\times \stackrel{}{\omega }=\varphi .`$ (4.7)
The explicit calculation of $`\stackrel{}{\omega }`$ in the case of the solution (4) gives the following only non-zero component of this vector function

$`\omega _\phi =\sqrt{2}m\mathrm{cos}\theta .`$ (4.8)
Of course, one obtains the same asymptotical value of $`\stackrel{}{\omega }`$ for the general solution of the dilaton gravity with a leading term of monopole type.

Now let us compute the potentials $`S_0`$, $`S_\alpha `$ and $`\stackrel{}{V}_\alpha `$ for the two concrete string theories under consideration. For the $`d=n=1`$ theory $`𝒫=(𝒫_1,𝒫_2)`$ and $`𝒬=(𝒬_1,𝒬_2,𝒬_3)`$ are $`1\times 2`$ and $`1\times 3`$ rows respectively, whereas $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=1`$ is a $`2\times 2`$ matrix and $`G_0=1`$ is a number. In this special case the block segmentations given by Eq. (2.12) coincide with the usual matrix structures and all the calculations are especially simple. So, for the potentials $`\stackrel{}{V}_\alpha `$ one immediately obtains that

$`\stackrel{}{V}_1=\left(𝒫_1𝒬_2𝒫_2𝒬_1\right)\stackrel{}{\omega },\stackrel{}{V}_2=\left(𝒫_1𝒬_2+𝒫_2𝒬_1\right)\stackrel{}{\omega },\stackrel{}{V}_3=\sqrt{2}𝒫_1𝒬_3\stackrel{}{\omega }.`$ (4.9)
These vector quantities lead to the appearance of Dirac string peculiarities for the metric (the NUT parameter), gauge (the magnetic charge) and Kalb Ramond fields according to Eqs. (2) and (4.9). In order to remove these peculiarities and to obtain the guaranteed asymptotically flat string theory solutions which correspond to the charged solutions of the effective dilaton gravity system, one must restrict the parameters $`𝒫`$ and $`𝒬`$ in such a way that all the quantities $`\stackrel{}{V}_\alpha `$ vanish identically. Let us also keep the arbitraryness of the $`\sigma `$ value for the restricted class of solutions in order to preserve the possibility of working within dilaton gravity with arbitrary coupling. These conditions lead to a unique choice of the restriction: $`𝒫_1=𝒬_1=0`$ and arbitrary values for the remaining parameters $`𝒫_2,𝒬_2`$ and $`𝒬_3`$. In this special case the calculation of the scalar potentials becomes much simpler and one finally obtains $`S_0=1`$ and

$`S_1=\left[\mathrm{cosh}\left(\sigma ^{\frac{1}{2}}\varphi \right)+𝒬_2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}\left(\sigma ^{\frac{1}{2}}\varphi \right)}{(\kappa )^{\frac{1}{2}}}}\right]^2,`$
$`S_2=\left[𝒬_3{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}\left(\sigma ^{\frac{1}{2}}\varphi \right)}{(\kappa )^{\frac{1}{2}}}}\right]^2,`$
$`S_3=\sqrt{2}𝒬_3{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}\left(\sigma ^{\frac{1}{2}}\varphi \right)}{(\kappa )^{\frac{1}{2}}}}\left[\mathrm{cosh}\left(\sigma ^{\frac{1}{2}}\varphi \right)+𝒬_2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}\left(\sigma ^{\frac{1}{2}}\varphi \right)}{(\kappa )^{\frac{1}{2}}}}\right],`$ (4.10)
where now $`\tau =𝒫_2^2`$ and $`\kappa =𝒬_2^2+𝒬_3^2`$. Note that the parameter $`𝒫_2`$ can be removed from Eqs. (4) and (4) with the help of the substitutions $`\sigma \kappa `$, $`\varphi |𝒫_2|\varphi `$ and $`m|𝒫_2|m`$. Equations (4) define the extension of the arbitrary solution of the dilaton gravity system (4) to the case of the $`d=n=1`$ theory completely. This extension is automatically free of any string peculiarity of Dirac type $`(\stackrel{}{V}_\alpha =0)`$ (up to construction of this extension). In particular, the solution (4) leads to charged asymptotically trivial heterotic string theory fields.

Now let us consider the bosonic string theory case with $`d=2,n=0`$. Here the block structure of the matrix potentials $`_\alpha `$ and $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\alpha `$ is not trivial, and it is convenient to parameterize the $`1\times 3`$ rows $`𝒫`$ and $`𝒬`$ as $`𝒫=(𝒫_1,P)`$ and $`𝒬=(𝒬_1,Q)`$ where $`P=(𝒫_2,𝒫_3)`$ and $`Q=(𝒬_2,𝒬_3)`$, respectively. The calculation of the $`\stackrel{}{V}_\alpha `$-potentials gives the following result:

$`\stackrel{}{V}_1=\left(𝒫_1Q^T𝒬_1\sigma _3P^T\right)\stackrel{}{\omega },\stackrel{}{V}_2=\left(𝒫_1\sigma _3Q^T+𝒬_1P^T\right)\stackrel{}{\omega },`$ (4.11)
where $`\sigma _3=G_0`$ in this theory. A further removal of the Dirac string peculiarities from the solution leads again to the restriction $`𝒫_1=𝒬_1=0`$ and to arbitrary values of $`P`$ and $`Q`$ under the same assumptions that in the previous case. Then, one obtains again that $`S_0=1`$, whereas for the remaining part of the scalar potentials one has the following relations:

$`S_1=\sigma _3+\mathrm{sinh}^2\left(\sigma ^{\frac{1}{2}}\varphi \right)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{P^TP}{\tau }}+{\displaystyle \frac{Q^TQ}{\kappa }}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}\left(\sigma ^{\frac{1}{2}}\varphi \right)\mathrm{cosh}\left(\sigma ^{\frac{1}{2}}\varphi \right)}{\sigma ^{\frac{1}{2}}}}\left[P^TQ+QP^T\right],`$ (4.12)
$`S_2=\mathrm{sinh}^2\left(\sigma ^{\frac{1}{2}}\varphi \right)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{P^TP}{\tau }}+{\displaystyle \frac{Q^TQ}{\kappa }}\right]\sigma _3+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}\left(\sigma ^{\frac{1}{2}}\varphi \right)\mathrm{cosh}\left(\sigma ^{\frac{1}{2}}\varphi \right)}{\sigma ^{\frac{1}{2}}}}\left[Q^TPPQ^T\right]\sigma _3,`$
where now $`\tau =P\sigma _3P^T`$ and $`\kappa =Q\sigma _3Q^T`$ (we have also performed the map $`P\sigma _3P`$ which preserves the $`\tau `$-value and leads to some simplifications of the result). The last step is to calculate the quantities $`\mathrm{det}S_1`$ and $`S_1^1`$. For $`\mathrm{det}S_1`$, after some algebra, one concludes that

$`\mathrm{det}S_1=\left[\mathrm{cosh}\left(\sigma ^{\frac{1}{2}}\varphi \right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}\left(\sigma ^{\frac{1}{2}}\varphi \right)}{\sigma ^{\frac{1}{2}}}}Q\sigma _3P^T\right]^2,`$ (4.13)
whereas for $`S_1^1`$ one simply obtains $`S_1^1=\frac{1}{\mathrm{det}S_1}\sigma _2S_1^T\sigma _2`$ in view of its $`2\times 2`$ matrix nature. Eqs. (4.12), (4.13) together with the relations $`\stackrel{}{V}_\alpha =0`$ and the above calculated quantity $`S_1^1`$ completely define the $`d=2,n=0`$ bosonic string theory extension of the effective three-dimensional dilaton gravity. Again, up to construction, this extension is automatically free of any Dirac string peculiarity. This last step completes the program formulated at the end of the previous section; any further analysis will be related to the special choice of the solution of the dilaton gravity system of equations (4). In this context we refer to the Nordstrom-Reissner type solution given by Eq. (4) as to the typical monopole solution which is widely represented in the classical $`\sigma `$-model gravity theories.

## 5 Conclusion

The results of this article allows one to transform static electromagnetic solutions of the Einstein-Maxwell theory to the corresponding solutions of the five-dimensional bosonic string theory and also to extend the electric (magnetic) static Einstein-Maxwell fields to the four-dimensional heterotic string theory with one vector field. As an alternative starting theory for the generating procedure it is possible to use the stationary General Relativity. Let us note that in our approach all the classical starting systems arise in some interpretation invariant form. This means that we do not actually start from, for example, General Relativity which represents the string theory ansatz with vanishing matter fields and Kaluza-Klein metric modes. In fact our Einstein-Maxwell and General Relativity subsystems arise as some formal objects from the symmetry invariant point of view and their physical nature is nothing else than a very special choice of the starting theories in the framework of our formalism. The same situation takes place in the effective three-dimensional dilaton gravity, which we have explored in details as the natural and the simplest physically interesting starting system. In particular, we have presented explicit relations for the extension of the solutions of the dilaton gravity system with arbitrary value of coupling to both the heterotic and bosonic string theories under consideration. More precisely, we have shown that this extension can be performed in a form which is free of any peculiarity of Dirac string type for solutions with a leading term of monopole type at spatial infinity. Note that the removal of these peculiarities means in fact some gauge fixing with respect to the subgroup of charging symmetries. This subgroup forms a total invariance class of extensions which are free of any parameter fixing. Actually, the general dilaton gravity extension scheme is related to arbitrary parameters $`𝒫`$ and $`𝒬`$, which effectively transform as $`𝒫𝒫\mathrm{\Sigma }C_1`$ and $`𝒬𝒬C_2`$ under the charging symmetry subgroup of transformations (2.15). However, the consistent removal of peculiarities demands the vanishing of the first components of the rows $`𝒫`$ and $`𝒬`$ \- a condition which does not hold when applying general charging symmetry transformations. Thus, the charging symmetry invariant class of string theory charged solutions related to the dilaton gravity subsystem definitely contains Dirac string peculiarities, whereas the completely asymptotically trivial string theory field configuration is charging symmetry non-invariant.

As it was briefly mentioned in the Introduction and also partially supported by our Nordstrom-Reissner solution example, the natural and the nearest applications of the new solution generation procedure proposed in this article is black hole physics. We hope to generalize our approach to the case of string theory with arbitrary dimensionality and with arbitrary number of the Abelian gauge fields. The leading principle for this generalization will be related to demanding a continuous and charging symmetry invariant extension of the general Israel-Wilson-Perjes class of solutions  to the non-extremal case. In a forthcoming publication  we hope to realize this program and to reach, in particular, the critical cases for the heterotic and bosonic string theories, which are the most interesting from the physical point of view.

## Acknowledgments

The work of both authors was supported by CONACyT grant $`N^0`$ $`J34245E`$; the work of A.H.-A. was also supported by grant CIC-$`4.18`$ whereas the work of O.V.K. - by grant RFBR $`N^0`$ $`\mathrm{00\hspace{0.17em}02\hspace{0.17em}17135}`$. O.V.K. thanks IFM UMICH for facilities and hospitality provided during his stay at Morelia, Michoacan, Mexico.


format: text

text:
# Zeno Dynamics of von Neumann Algebras

## 1. Introduction

The Zeno or “a watched pot never boils” effect has, over the last decades, attracted a lot of interest from quantum physicists, see  and the extensive list of references in . The effect, which consists in the possible impedition of quantum evolution, e.g., decay processes, under the influence of frequent measurement events, or, more generally, frequent system-environment interactions, has even entered popular science texts . It is a striking example of the peculiarities of quantum theory whose origin can be traced back to the geometry of the Hilbert space , which implies a quadratic short-time behavior of transition probabilities .

Here, we rely on the mathematical formulation of the strict Zeno paradox as presented by Misra and Sudarshan in , i.e., the limit of infinitely frequent measurements, which we will now briefly sketch. Given the Hamiltonian evolution $`U(t)=\mathrm{e}^{iHt}`$ on the Hilbert space $``$, with $`H`$ lower semibounded, and a projection $`E`$ on $``$, one assumes the existence of the limits

$$W(t)\stackrel{def}{=}\underset{n\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{s}\mathrm{lim}}\left[EU(t/n)E\right]^n$$

in the strong sense on $``$, for all $`t`$ (this condition can be relaxed to $`t0`$ if a CPT-symmetry is present). It is then shown, using methods of complex analysis, that $`W(t)`$ is a strongly continuous group, $`W(t+s)=W(t)W(s)`$, for all $`t`$, and $`W(t)=W(t)^{}`$. In particular one finds a lower semibounded operator $`B`$ and a projection $`G`$ such that $`BG=GB=B`$ which induces the Zeno dynamics: $`W(t)=G\mathrm{e}^{iBt}G`$. If one employs the initial condition $`\mathrm{s}\mathrm{lim}_{t0_+}W(t)=E`$, one can identify $`G`$ with $`E`$. Thus one sees that the Zeno dynamics is a modified Hamiltonian dynamics, which is confined to the Zeno subspace $`E`$.

Although the limit of infinitely frequent measurements has been argued to be unphysical due to Heisenberg uncertainty , it is still of conceptual interest. This is in particular the case if one wants to study the induced limiting dynamics $`W(t)`$ on the Zeno subspace and to compare it with the original one on the full space. This has, however, only been done for simple examples . It turns out that in these examples, the Zeno dynamics corresponds to Hamiltonian evolution with additional constraints and boundary conditions. For example, one finds an infinite well potential term, corresponding to Dirichlet boundary conditions, when the projector is multiplication with the characteristic function of an interval in the one-dimensional case.

In this paper we show how the treatment of  can be carried over to the modular flow of a von Neumann algebra $`𝒜`$. First and foremost, this is a direct generalization of the result of Misra and Sudarshan to dynamics whose generators are not lower semibounded. The special role projections play for von Neumann algebras gives our generalization some additional impact, in view of the ongoing discussion over the projection postulate. Furthermore, our analysis can also straightforwardly be applied to KMS-states of $`W^{}`$-dynamical systems for inverse temperatures $`0<\beta \mathrm{}`$. But what is, in our view, most important, is that our treatment yields an explicit identification of the Zeno dynamics: It can, in favorable cases, be shown to coinced with the unique modular flow of the localized von Neumann subalgebra $`E𝒜E`$. This result can be viewed as a variant of the Kato–Lie–Trotter product formula \[4, Corollary 3.1.31\].

In the following section, we present this generalization of the strict Zeno paradox. The final section contains some remarks on the status of the main Theorem 2.1, its weaknesses and possible extensions, as well as an outlook towards physical applications.

## 2. The Zeno Paradox in the Context of von Neumann Algebras

###### Theorem 2.1.

Let $`𝒜`$ be a von Neumann algebra with faithful, normal state $`\omega `$, represented on the Hilbert space $``$ with cyclic and separating vector $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ associated with $`\omega `$. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be the modular operator of $`(𝒜,\mathrm{\Omega })`$. Let $`E𝒜`$ be a projection. Set $`𝒜_E\stackrel{def}{=}E𝒜E`$, and define a subspace of $``$ by $`_E\stackrel{def}{=}\overline{𝒜_E\mathrm{\Omega }}E`$. Assume:

1. For all $`t`$, the strong operator limits

$$W(t)\stackrel{def}{=}\underset{n\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{s}\mathrm{lim}}\left[E\mathrm{\Delta }^{it/n}E\right]^n$$

exist, are weakly continuous in $`t`$, and satisfy the initial condition

$$\underset{t0}{\mathrm{w}\mathrm{lim}}W(t)=E.$$
2. For all $`t`$, the following limits exist:

$$W(ti/2)\stackrel{def}{=}\underset{n\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{s}\mathrm{lim}}\left[E\mathrm{\Delta }^{i(ti/2)/n}E\right]^n,$$

where the convergence is strong on the common, dense domain $`𝒜\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

Then the $`W(t)`$ form a strongly continuous group of unitary operators on $`_E`$. The group $`W(t)`$ induces an automorphism group $`\tau ^E`$ of $`𝒜_E`$ by

$$\tau ^E:𝒜_EA_E\tau _t^E(A_E)\stackrel{def}{=}W(t)A_EW(t)=W(t)A_EW(t)^{},$$

such that $`(𝒜_E,\tau ^E)`$ is a $`W^{}`$-dynamical system. The vectors $`W(z)A_E\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`A_E𝒜_E`$, are holomorphic in the strip $`0<\mathrm{Im}z<1/2`$ and continuous on its boundary.

Notice that $`𝒜_E`$ is a von Neumann subalgebra of $`𝒜`$, see \[17, Corollary 5.5.7\], for which $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is cyclic for $`_E`$ and separating. Thus, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ induces a faithful representation of $`𝒜_E`$ on the closed Hilbert subspace $`_E`$, and thus all notions above are well-defined.

###### Corollary 2.2.

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_E`$ be a vector in $`_E`$ which induces a faithful, normal state $`\omega _E`$ on $`𝒜_E`$, and denote by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_E`$ the modular operator of $`(𝒜_E,\omega _E)`$. Assume further the validity of the following additional condition:

1. For all $`A_E`$, $`B_E𝒜_E`$ holds

$$\underset{t0}{lim}W(ti/2)A_E\mathrm{\Omega }_E\mathrm{,}W(ti/2)B_E\mathrm{\Omega }_E=\mathrm{\Delta }_E^{1/2}A_E\mathrm{\Omega }_E\mathrm{,}\mathrm{\Delta }_E^{1/2}B_E\mathrm{\Omega }_E.$$

Then $`\tau ^E`$ is the modular atuomorphism group of $`(𝒜_E,\mathrm{\Omega }_E)`$.

The remainder of this section contains the proof of the above theorem and its corollary, split into several lemmata. In all these, we will only use conditions i) and ii). Only after that will condition iii) be used to identify the modular group.

Set $`S\stackrel{def}{=}\left\{z\right|1/2<\mathrm{Im}z<0\}`$. Define operator-valued functions

$$F_n(z)\stackrel{def}{=}\left[E\mathrm{\Delta }^{iz/n}E\right]^n,\text{for }z\overline{S},n.$$

The $`F_n(z)`$ are operators whose domains of definition contain the common, dense domain $`𝒜\mathrm{\Omega }`$. They depend holomorphically on $`z`$ in the sense that the vector-valued functions $`F_n(z)A\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are holomorphic on $`S`$ and continuous on $`\overline{S}`$ for every $`A𝒜`$. For this and the following lemma see \[4, Section 2.5, Section 5.3, and Theorem 5.4.4\].

###### Lemma 2.3.

For $`z\overline{S}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }D(\mathrm{\Delta }^{\left|\mathrm{Im}z\right|})`$ holds the estimate

$$F_n(z)\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi },$$

for all $`n`$.

###### Proof.

Define vector-valued functions $`f_k^{\mathrm{\Psi },n}(z)\stackrel{def}{=}\left[E\mathrm{\Delta }^{iz/n}E\right]^k\mathrm{\Psi }.`$ These are well-defined for $`z\overline{S}`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }D(\mathrm{\Delta }^{\left|\mathrm{Im}z\right|})`$ and all $`kn`$, since for such $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, $`z`$ we have $`\left[E\mathrm{\Delta }^{iz/n}E\right]^{k1}D(E\mathrm{\Delta }^{iz/n}E)`$. Approximate $`f_{k1}^{\mathrm{\Psi },n}(z)`$ by elements of the form $`A_l\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`A_l𝒜`$. Then for any $`B𝒜`$ holds

$`\left|B\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{,}E\mathrm{\Delta }^{iz/n}EA_l\mathrm{\Omega }\right|`$ $`=\left|\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{,}B^{}E\mathrm{\Delta }^{iz/n}EA_l\mathrm{\Delta }^{iz/n}\mathrm{\Omega }\right|`$
$`=\left|\omega (B^{}E\sigma _{z/n}(EA_l))\right|`$
$`B^{}E\mathrm{\Omega }EA_l\mathrm{\Omega }`$
$`BA_l\mathrm{\Omega }.`$
Here, $`\omega `$ is the state on $`𝒜`$ associated with the cyclic and separating vector $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (we always identify elements of $`𝒜`$ with their representations on $``$), and $`\sigma `$ denotes the modular group. The first estimate above follows explicitly from the corresponding property of $`\sigma `$, see \[4, Proposition 5.3.7\] (the connection between faithful states of von Neumann algebras and KMS states given by Takesaki’s Theorem \[4, Theorem 5.3.10\] is used here and in the following). This means $`E\mathrm{\Delta }^{iz/n}EA_l\mathrm{\Omega }A_l\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and since $`A_l\mathrm{\Omega }f_{k1}^{\mathrm{\Psi },n}(z)`$ in the norm of $``$, it follows $`f_k^{\mathrm{\Psi },n}(z)f_{k1}^{\mathrm{\Psi },n}(z)`$. Since this holds for all $`k=1,\mathrm{},n`$, we see

$$F_n(z)\mathrm{\Psi }=f_n^{\mathrm{\Psi },n}(z)\mathrm{}f_1^{\mathrm{\Psi },n}(z)\mathrm{\Psi },$$

as desired. ∎

The estimate proved above also yields that the $`F_n`$ are closable. We will denote their closures by the same symbols in the following.

###### Lemma 2.4.

For $`zS`$ holds the representation

$$F_n(z)A\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{(z+i)^2}{2\pi i}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{F_n(ti/2)A\mathrm{\Omega }}{(t+i/2)^2(ti/2z)}\frac{F_n(t)A\mathrm{\Omega }}{(t+i)^2(tz)}\mathrm{d}t.$$
(1)
where the integrals are taken in the sense of Bochner. One further has

$$0=\frac{1}{2\pi i}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{F_n(ti/2)A\mathrm{\Omega }}{(t+i/2)^2(ti/2z)}\frac{F_n(t)A\mathrm{\Omega }}{(t+i)^2(tz)}\mathrm{d}t,$$
(2)
for $`z\overline{S}`$.

###### Proof.

By Cauchy’s theorem for vector-valued functions \[13, Theorem 3.11.3\], we can write

$$\frac{F_n(z)A\mathrm{\Omega }}{(z+i)^2}=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\frac{F_n(\zeta )A\mathrm{\Omega }}{(\zeta +i)^2(\zeta z)}d\zeta ,$$

where the integral runs over a closed, positively oriented contour in $`S`$, which encloses $`z`$. We choose this contour to be the boundary of the rectangle determined by the points $`\{Ri\epsilon ,Ri\epsilon ,Ri(1/2\epsilon ),Ri(1/2\epsilon )\}`$ for $`R>0`$, $`1/4>\epsilon >0`$. By Lemma 2.3, the norms of the integrals over the paths parallel to the real line stay bounded as $`R\mathrm{}`$, while those of the integrals parallel to the imaginary axis vanish. Thus

$$\frac{F_n(z)A\mathrm{\Omega }}{(z+i)^2}=\frac{1}{2\pi i}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{F_n(ti(1/2\epsilon ))A\mathrm{\Omega }}{(t+i(1/2+\epsilon ))^2(ti(1/2\epsilon )z)}$$

$$\frac{F_n(t)A\mathrm{\Omega }}{(t+i(1\epsilon ))^2(ti\epsilon z)}\mathrm{d}t.$$

For $`0<\epsilon _0<\mathrm{min}\{\left|\mathrm{Im}z\right|,\left|1/2\mathrm{Im}z\right|\}`$ and all $`\epsilon `$ such that $`0\epsilon \epsilon _0`$, the integrand is bounded in norm by $`A/\left[(1+t^2)\mathrm{min}\{\left|\mathrm{Im}z\epsilon _0\right|,\left|\mathrm{Im}z(1/2\epsilon _0)\right|\}\right]`$. Since moreover, in the strong sense and pointwise in $`t`$, $`lim_{\epsilon 0}F_n(ti\epsilon )A\mathrm{\Omega }=F_n(t)A\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and $`lim_{\epsilon 0}F_n(ti(1/2\epsilon ))A\mathrm{\Omega }=F_n(ti/2)A\mathrm{\Omega }`$, the conditions for the application of the vector-valued Lebesgue theorem on dominated convergence \[13, Theorem 3.7.9\] are given and the desired representation follows in the limit $`\epsilon 0`$. The vanishing of the second integral follows analogously. ∎

###### Lemma 2.5.

The strong limits $`F(z)\stackrel{def}{=}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{lim}_n\mathrm{}F_n(z)`$, $`zS`$, are closable operators with common, dense domain $`𝒜\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (we denote their closures by the same symbols). The integral representation

$$F(z)A\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{(z+i)^2}{2\pi i}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{W(ti/2)A\mathrm{\Omega }}{(t+i/2)^2(ti/2z)}\frac{W(t)A\mathrm{\Omega }}{(t+i)^2(tz)}\mathrm{d}t$$
(3)
holds good, and the functions $`F(z)A\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are holomorphic on $`S`$, for all $`A𝒜\mathrm{\Omega }`$. There exists a projection $`G`$ and a positive operator $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=G\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }G`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{4iz}=F(z)`$ for all $`zS`$.

###### Proof.

Using Lemma 2.3, we see that the norm of the integrand in (1) is uniformly bounded in $`n`$ by $`2A/\left[(1+t^2)\mathrm{min}\{\left|\mathrm{Im}z\right|,1/2\left|\mathrm{Im}z\right|\}\right]`$, which is integrable in $`t`$. Furthermore, $`F_n(t)A\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`F_n(ti/2)A\mathrm{\Omega }`$ converge in norm to $`W(t)A\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`W(ti/2)A\mathrm{\Omega }`$, respectively, by assumptions i) and ii) of Theorem 2.1. Thus, we can again apply Lebesgue’s theorem on dominated convergence to infer the existence of the limits $`lim_n\mathrm{}F_n(z)A\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for all $`A𝒜`$. This defines linear operators on the common, dense domain $`𝒜\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Again, by the estimate of Lemma 2.3, we have $`F(z)A_n\mathrm{\Omega }0`$ if $`A_n0`$, and therefore the $`F(z)`$ are closable. The validity of Equation (3) is then clear. Since the bound noted above is uniform in $`n`$, and all the functions $`F_n(z)A\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are holomorphic in $`S`$, we can apply the Stieltjes–Vitali theorem \[13, Theorem 3.14.1\] to deduce the stated holomorphy of $`F(z)A\mathrm{\Omega }`$. We now consider the operators $`F(is)`$, $`0<s<1/2`$. Using the same properties of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`E`$, one sees that these operators are self-adjoint, and in fact, positive: Namely, the limits are densely defined, symmetric and closable operators, and an analytic vector for $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}`$ is also analytic for $`F(is)`$, $`0<s<1/2`$. Thus the $`F(is)`$ possess a common, dense set of analytic vectors. Under these circumstances, the $`F(is)`$ are essentially self-adjoint, and we denote their unique, self-adjoint extension by the same symbol. We now follow  to show that the functional equation $`F(i(s+t))=F(is)F(it)`$ holds for $`s`$, $`t>0`$ such that $`s+t<1/2`$. To this end, consider first the case that $`s`$ and $`t`$ are rationally related, i.e., there exist $`p`$, $`q`$ such that

$$\frac{s+t}{r(p+q)}=\frac{s}{rp}=\frac{t}{rq},\text{for all }r.$$

Then

$$\left[E\mathrm{\Delta }^{\frac{s+t}{r(p+q)}}E\right]^{r(p+q)}A\mathrm{\Omega }=\left[E\mathrm{\Delta }^{\frac{s}{rp}}E\right]^{rp}\left[E\mathrm{\Delta }^{\frac{t}{rq}}E\right]^{rq}A\mathrm{\Omega },A𝒜,$$

from which the claim follows in the limit $`r\mathrm{}`$. The general case follows since $`F(is)A\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is holomorphic and therefore also strongly continuous in $`s`$ for all $`A𝒜`$. Now set $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=F(i/4)`$. By the spectral calculus for unbounded operators \[17, Section 5.6\], the positive powers $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\sigma `$ exist for $`0<\sigma 1`$, and are positive operators with domain containing the common, dense domain $`𝒜\mathrm{\Omega }`$. They satisfy the functional equation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\sigma +\tau }=\mathrm{\Gamma }^\sigma \widehat{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\tau `$ for $`\sigma `$, $`\tau >0`$ such that $`\sigma +\tau 1`$, and where $`\widehat{}`$ denotes the closure of the operator product. The solution to this functional equation with initial condition $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=F(i/4)`$ is unique and thus it follows $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\sigma =F(i\sigma /4)`$, since the operators $`F`$ satisfy the same functional equation, and all operators in question depend continuously on $`\sigma `$, in the strong sense when applied to the common core $`𝒜\mathrm{\Omega }`$. For $`1/4s<1/2`$ we have $`F(is)=F(i/4)F(i(s1/4))=\mathrm{\Gamma }F(i(s1/4))=\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{4s1}=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{4s}`$, which finally shows the identity $`F(is)=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{4s}`$ for $`0<s<1/2`$. Now, for every $`A𝒜`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{4iz}A\mathrm{\Omega }`$ extends to a holomorphic function on $`S`$ which coincides with $`F(z)A\mathrm{\Omega }`$ on the segment $`\{is0<s<1/2\}`$ as we have just seen. The identity theorem for vector-valued, holomorphic functions \[13, Theorem 3.11.5\] then implies $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{4iz}A\mathrm{\Omega }=F(z)A\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`zS`$ and all $`A𝒜`$. Thus $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{4iz}=F(z)`$ holds on $`S`$ as an identity of densely defined, closed operators. Setting $`G=P([0,\mathrm{}))`$, where $`P`$ is the spectral resolution of the identity for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, we see that we can write $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=G\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }G`$, concluding this proof. ∎

###### Lemma 2.6.

It holds $`G=E`$, and $`W(t)=E\mathrm{\Gamma }^{4it}E`$, for all $`t`$.

###### Proof.

Using (3) we can write, adding a zero contribution to that integral representation,

$$\begin{array}{c}B\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{,}F(ti\eta )A\mathrm{\Omega }=\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{(t+ii\eta )^2}{2\pi i}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{d}s\{\frac{B\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{,}W(si/2)A\mathrm{\Omega }}{(s+i/2)^2(sti/2+i\eta )}\frac{B\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{,}W(s)A\mathrm{\Omega }}{(s+i)^2(st+i\eta )}\\ \hfill \frac{B\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{,}W(si/2)A\mathrm{\Omega }}{(s+i/2)^2(sti/2i\eta )}+\frac{B\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{,}W(s)A\mathrm{\Omega }}{(s+i)^2(sti\eta )}\},\end{array}$$

where the integral over the last two terms is zero, as can be seen from (2) and the same arguments that were used to derive (3). This yields

$$=\frac{(t+ii\eta )^2}{\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\eta B\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{,}W(si/2)A\mathrm{\Omega }}{(s+i/2)^2((sti/2)^2+\eta ^2)}\frac{\eta B\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{,}W(s)A\mathrm{\Omega }}{(s+i)^2((st)^2+\eta ^2)}\mathrm{d}s.$$

As $`\eta 0_+`$, the first term under the integral vanishes, while the second reproduces the integrable function $`A\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{,}W(t)B\mathrm{\Omega }/(t+i)^2`$ as the boundary value of its Poisson transformation. Thus we have seen

$$\underset{\eta 0_+}{lim}A\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{,}F(ti\eta )B\mathrm{\Omega }=A\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{,}W(t)B\mathrm{\Omega },$$

for given $`A`$, $`B𝒜`$, and almost all $`t`$. Since the integral is uniformly bounded in $`\eta `$, the boundary value of this Poisson transformation is continuous in $`t`$, see, e.g.\[5, Section 5.4\]. The same holds for $`A\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{,}W(t)B\mathrm{\Omega }`$ by assumption i) of Theorem 2.1, and therefore the limiting identity at $`\eta =0`$ follows for all $`t`$. On the other hand, since $`G\mathrm{\Gamma }^{4it}G`$ is strongly continuous in $`t`$, we have $`lim_{\eta 0_+}A\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{,}F(ti\eta )B\mathrm{\Omega }=A\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{,}G\mathrm{\Gamma }^{4it}GB\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for all $`t`$. Thus, the identity of bounded operators $`W(t)=G\mathrm{\Gamma }^{4it}G`$ holds for all $`t`$. By assumption we have $`\mathrm{w}\mathrm{lim}_{t0}W(t)=E`$, thus $`W(s)W^{}(s)=G\mathrm{\Gamma }^{4is}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{4is}G=G`$ implies $`G=E`$. ∎

###### Lemma 2.7.

The action $`\tau _t^E:𝒜_EA_E\tau _t^E(A_E)=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{4it}A_E\mathrm{\Gamma }^{4it}`$ is a strongly continuous group of automorphisms of $`𝒜_E`$.

###### Proof.

For $`A_E=EAE𝒜_E`$ we have $`E\mathrm{\Delta }^{it/n}EA_EE\mathrm{\Delta }^{it/n}E=E\sigma _{t/n}(A_E)E`$, where $`\sigma `$ is the modular group of $`(𝒜,\mathrm{\Omega })`$, and this shows $`F_n(t)A_EF_n(t)𝒜_E`$ for all $`n`$. Since $`𝒜_E`$ is weakly closed and $`F_n(t)A_EF_n(t)`$ converges strongly, and therefore also weakly, by assumption i) of Theorem 2.1, it converges to an element of $`𝒜_E`$. Since $`F_n(t)A_EF_n(t)A_E`$ for all $`n`$, the limit mapping is continuous on $`𝒜_E`$. By Lemma 2.6, it equals $`\tau _t^E`$, as defined above, for all $`t`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{4it}`$ is a strongly continuous group of unitary operators on $`E`$, the assertion follows. ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 2.1 and Corollary 2.2.

We note first, that $`W(t)=W(t)^{}`$ can be seen by direct methods as in . Secondly, since $`\tau ^E`$ is an automorphism group of $`𝒜_E`$, it follows by definition of $`_E`$, that the $`W(t)`$ leave that subspace invariant and thus form a unitary group on it. The stated analyticity properties of $`W`$ are contained in the conlusions of Lemmata 2.5 and 2.6.

Let us now turn to the identification of $`W`$ with the modular group of the pair $`(𝒜_E,\mathrm{\Omega }_E)`$. An argument as was used in the proof of Lemma 2.6 shows

$$A\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{,}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{4i(ti/2)}B\mathrm{\Omega }=\underset{\eta 1/2_{}}{lim}A\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{,}F(ti\eta )B\mathrm{\Omega }=A\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{,}W(ti/2)B\mathrm{\Omega },$$

for given $`A`$, $`B𝒜`$, and almost all $`t`$. Additionally, as mentioned in the proof of Lemma 2.6, the boundary value of the Poisson transformation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{4i(ti/2)}`$ is weakly continuous on $`𝒜\mathrm{\Omega }`$. From this, the density of $`𝒜\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in $``$, and assumption iii) of Theorem 2.1 it follows for $`A_E`$, $`B_E𝒜_E`$:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2A_E\mathrm{\Omega }_E\mathrm{,}\mathrm{\Gamma }^2A_E\mathrm{\Omega }_E`$ $`=\underset{t0}{lim}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{4i(ti/2)}B_E\mathrm{\Omega }_E\mathrm{,}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{4i(ti/2)}A_E\mathrm{\Omega }_E`$
$`=\underset{t0}{lim}W(ti/2)A_E\mathrm{\Omega }_E\mathrm{,}W(ti/2)A_E\mathrm{\Omega }_E`$
$`=\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}A_E\mathrm{\Omega }_E\mathrm{,}\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}A_E\mathrm{\Omega }_E,`$
where the weak continuity has been used in the first and the identity above in the second step. Now by the modular condition satisfied by $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, this becomes
$`=B_E^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_E\mathrm{,}A_E^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_E.`$
This is the modular condition for the automorphism group $`\tau ^E`$ with respect to $`(𝒜_E,\mathrm{\Omega }_E)`$. The assertion of the theorem follows by uniqueness of the modular group \[17, Theorem 9.2.16\] and the preceding three Lemmata. ∎

## 3. Conclusions

Let us comment a bit on the status of Theorem 2.1. It is stronger than the result of  in that it generalizes it to KMS-states of $`W^{}`$-dynamical systems at inverse temperatures $`0<\beta \mathrm{}`$. This is exactly the framework in which a strip of analyticity of width $`\beta `$ above (or below, depending on convention) the real axis exists, which is the sole condition needed to apply the methods of complex analysis used extensively to prove Theorem 2.1. This shows that Misra’s and Sudarshan’s theorem  can be extended to cases in which the Hamiltonian is not lower semibounded, but in which its negative spectral parts are “exponentially damped” (see \[12, Section V.2.1\] for the precise meaning of these notions). This is in contrast to the counterexample in , where those authors state that lower semiboundedness is essential. That counterexample involves the unitary group generated by the momentom operator, which does not fulfill any requirement of exponential damping of the negative spectral part, and thus violates our analyticity assumptions. See also the discussion in \[14, Section 3\], where it is noted that lower semiboundedness does not seem to be important for the Zeno effect in general

But more interestingly, Corollary 2.2 identifies the induced Zeno dynamics uniquely, as already mentioned in the introduction. For this, however, we needed the additional assumption iii) in Corollary 2.2, and this assumption is not a simple consequence of the modular condition of the original system. But notice that we did not use assumption iii) until after Lemma 2.7, so that in any case we get an automorphic Zeno dynamics on $`𝒜_E`$, which however might differ from the modular dynamics, depending on the choice of state on $`𝒜_E`$, but has the analyticity properties needed to check the modular condition for a given state as in Corollary 2.2. Assumption iii) is therefore only a formal condition for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_E`$ to be a $`\tau ^E`$-KMS state, essentially a straightforward transcription of the modular condition itself. One simple example of an equilibrium state for the Zeno dynamics can be given in the case when the projector $`E`$ commutes with the initial dynamics, i.e., $`[E,\mathrm{\Delta }]=0`$. Then the Zeno dynamics simplifes to $`W(t)=E\mathrm{\Delta }^{it}E`$ and the state $`\mathrm{\Omega }_E\stackrel{def}{=}E\mathrm{\Omega }/E\mathrm{\Omega }`$ satisfies condition iii). Other, less trivial, examples can arise from Gibbs equilibria, as is shown in .

As already remarked in , the relatively strong assumptions of the theorem might be difficult to prove in concrete cases. It seems more likely that in studying physical models one would rather identify the nature of the induced Zeno dynamics directly, as for example in . Therefore Theorem 2.1 and Corollary 2.2 are to be considered as a mathematical Gedankenexperiment, which might be helpful in guiding physical intuition.

However, some relaxations of the assumptions of Theorem 2.1 are possible in special cases : Firstly, if the theory contains a CPT-operator, the conclusions of Theorem 2.1 already follow if one assumes the convergence of the limits defining $`W(t)`$, $`W(ti/2)`$ only for positive times. Secondly, if we restrict attention to von Neumann algebras $`𝒜`$ that allow a faithful representation on a *separable* Hilbert space $``$, we can drop the assumption of weak continuity of the limits $`W(t)`$, $`W(ti/2)`$ used in the proof of Lemma 2.6, by the argument given in : First show that $`lim_{\eta 0_+}A\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{,}F(ti\eta )B\mathrm{\Omega }=A\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{,}W(t)B\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for $`t`$ outside an exceptional null set $`𝒩_{A,B}`$. Then, there exists a countable set $`𝒞𝒜`$ such that $`𝒞\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is dense in $``$ and the countable union $`_{A,B𝒞}𝒩_{A,B}`$ is still a null set. One easily shows that the limit relation holds true outside this set in the weak sense on $``$ and proceeds from there using the strong continuity of $`G\mathrm{\Gamma }^{4it}G`$ as in .

An application, to simple examples of quantum statistical mechanics, like spin systems, seems possible. There, if the projection $`E`$ projects to some pure state outside a bounded region, one is in a case where one would presume the Zeno dynamics to exist. One could expect to find the dynamics of the bounded region of the spin system (a matrix model) with appropriate boundary conditions, to be determined by the action of $`E`$ on the boundary layer (see  for a complementary discussion). This, and further applications in the context of quantum statistical mechanics are found in a subsequent paper .

There will also appear a subtle point in physical applications: When considering models one usually deals with $`C^{}`$-dynamical systems rather than $`W^{}`$-dynamical ones, i.e., the relevant algebras are norm rather than weakly closed. For these, the set of KMS-states at given inverse temperature is in general a nonempty, weak $``$-closed, convex subset of the state space \[4, Section 5.3.2\]. Thus, one always has to choose a KMS-state and an associated representation to work within. If one fixes a KMS-state, say $`\omega `$ with vector representative $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and wants to consider the induced Zeno dynamics determined by a projector $`E`$, the restricted subsytem $`𝒜_E`$ will still have in general a multitude of KMS-states of its own. The point is that it is not a priori clear that the Zeno dynamics will leave a chosen state $`\omega _E`$ invariant. It may happen that the Zeno dynamics transforms the KMS-states of $`𝒜_E`$ into each other in a nontrivial way. In this case the Zeno dynamics is not unitary, i.e., reversible. This is a reflection of the same problem appearing in the quantum mechanical context \[7, Section 5\]. This cannot happen, however, within the context of Theorem 2.1, for if the Zeno dynamics satisfies condition iii), then invariance of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_E`$ follows directly \[4, Proposition 5.3.3\]. But even if the equilibrium condition iii) of that theorem is not satisfied, Lemma 2.7 still assures that the induced dynamics is unitary. For these problems, see also the recent approach of Gustafson , who tackles the associated problem of selfadjointness of the generator of the Zeno dynamics (In , one also finds some important remarks on the history of the subject).

Finally, we remark that we were in part motivated by the proposal to take the modular flow of observable algebras as a definition of physical time , for example on a generally relativistic background, when the usual concepts are less useful. However, the relation between modular groups and space-time is an intricate one, as has local quantum physics taught us , and this thread of thought might be just at its beginning.