text:
# Moving frames for cotangent bundles

## 1. Introduction.

This paper has a very modest scope: we present our “operational system” for Hamiltonian mechanics on cotangent bundles $`M=T^{}Q`$, based on moving frames. In a related work , we will present some concrete examples to convey the algorithmical nature of this formalism.

A powerful tool in riemannian geometry is the “method of moving frames”, introduced by Élie Cartan. Actually, moving frames appeared earlier in Lagrangian Mechanics: Poincaré presented in 1901 a moving frame version of the Euler-Lagrange equations111We thank Larry Bates (personal information): moving frames were introduced by Euler . Certainly moving frames was understood by the caveman who invented the wheel., later refered as the “quasi-coordinates” method. Cartan himself has advocated applying moving frames in mechanics , in particular using his equivalence method. See  for a modern exposition of Cartan’s paper.

When we use a moving frame and its dual coframe, the canonical symplectic form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in $`T^{}Q`$ deviates from the Darboux format. This is not bad: we use this feature to encode information about the system.

Moving frames are natural when dealing with Lie groups and with constrained systems, either vakonomic or non-holonomic (see  for background). Linear constraints define a distribution $``$ of $`s`$-dimensional planes $`E_qT_qQ`$, where $`Q`$ is an $`n`$-dimensional configuration space, $`s<n`$.

## 2. Basic formalism

Let $`Q`$ be a $`n`$-dimensional manifold, $`TQ`$ its tangent bundle and $`T^{}Q`$ its cotangent bundle (in both cases we denote by $`\pi `$ the canonical projection). Let $`(q_1,\mathrm{},q_n)`$ be coordinates on $`Q`$; the associated coordinates $`p_q=(p,q)`$ on $`T^{}Q`$ are defined by the duality rule $`p_q(\frac{}{q_I})=(p_Jdq_J,\frac{}{q_I})=p_I`$ (we adopt the summation convention on repeated indices). The canonical 1-form $`\omega `$ on $`T^{}Q,\omega (V_{p_q})=p_q(\pi _{}V_{p_q})`$ writes in the $`(p,q)`$ coordinates as $`\omega _{p_q}=pdq`$. The canonical symplectic 2-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }=d\omega `$ on $`T^{}Q`$ as $`\mathrm{\Omega }=dp_Idq_I`$.

### 2.1. Coframe coordinates for $`T^{}Q`$

Let $`\{ϵ_I=a_{IK}dq_K,I=1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ a local coframe in $`Q`$. We denote by $`\{e_J=b_{LJ}/q_L\}`$ the dual frame, defined by $`ϵ_I(e_J)=\delta _{IJ}.`$ The matrices $`A`$ and $`B`$ are inverses.

* We call quasi-velocities (respectively, quasi momenta) the coordinates $`(u,q)`$ on $`TQ`$ (respectively, $`(m,q)`$ on $`T^{}Q`$) defined by

$$u_q=u_Ie_I,p_q=m_Iϵ_I.$$
(1)

The name “quasi-momenta” could be replaced without guit my “momenta”. For instance, angular momenta $`m_I`$ correspond to $`e_I=\mathrm{infinitesimal}\mathrm{rotations}`$ in $`\mathrm{}^3`$.

Rules of transformation are readily obtained:

$$p_J=m_Iϵ_I(\frac{}{q_J})=m_Ia_{IJ},m_J=p_Idq_I(e_J)=p_Ib_{IJ}.$$
(2)
It is easy to write $`\omega `$ in terms of the trivialization $`(m,q)`$ of $`T^{}Q`$:

$$\omega =pdq=m_Iϵ_I$$
(3)
This is the “canonical misunderstanding”: the expression $`m_Iϵ_I`$ now means a 1-form in $`T^{}Q`$ in coordinates $`(m,q)`$. The same expression (see (LABEL:new)) denotes an element $`p_q=mϵ(q)=m_Iϵ_I(q)T_q^{}Q.`$ (We use heavier notation when we feel necessary. We could add a superscript $`\mathrm{\#}`$ when thinking of $`ϵ_J^\mathrm{\#}`$ either as a 1-form in Q, or its pullback to $`T^{}Q`$. For the latter a double superscript could be used. However, we will try to keep the notation as simple as possible.)

The basic idea of this work is to write the canonical 2-form in a non-Darboux format. The following is obvious and will be explored in Theorem 3. further below:

* The canonical 2-form in $`T^{}Q`$ writes as

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=d\omega =dpdq=dm_Iϵ_I+m_Idϵ_I$$
(4)

### 2.2. Earnest coordinate vectorfields and coframes

We associate to the local trivialization $`(m,q)`$ such that $`p_q=m_Iϵ_I`$, the lifted coframe for $`T^{}Q`$ given by

$$\{ϵ_I,dm_I\}.$$
(5)
We will now describe the corresponding dual basis of vectorfields in $`T^{}Q`$. It turns out that it is not $`\{e_I,/m_I\}.`$ In the correct version, the first set will acquire a fiber component, and will be denoted $`e_I^{}`$.

* We call earnest coordinate vectorfields for $`T^{}Q`$ the coordinate frame associated to the parametrization $`(m,q)`$:

$$X_{q_I}^ϵ=\frac{}{q_I}_{|(m\mathrm{fixed})},\frac{}{m_I}ϵ_I.$$
(6)

These vectorfields are dual to the forms $`\{dq_I,dm_I\}`$, differentials of the coordinate functions. The identification $`/m_Iϵ_I(q)`$, a vertical vectorfield in $`T^{}Q`$, is the usual identification of a vector space with its tangent space (here, $`T_{p_q}(T_q^{}Q)T_q^{}Q`$).

We claim that denoting $`/q_I`$ without subscript, is misleading. The vectorfields $`X_{q_I}^ϵ=/q_I|_{(m\mathrm{fixed})}`$ and $`/q_{|(p\mathrm{fixed})}^{}{}_{I}{}^{}`$ are different! Throughout this work we reserve unsubscripted notation $`/q_I`$ for the vectorfield corresponding to the standard coordinates $`(p,q)`$ for $`T^{}Q`$. Thus if we write $`e_J=b_{LJ}/q_L`$ thinking as a vectorfield in $`T^{}Q`$, it is assumed the standard $`(p,q)`$ parametrization.

In fact, we must go back to a standard “Advanced Calculus” class. If $`(q,p)`$ and $`(q,m)`$ are two sets of coordinates on a fibered manifold, the notation $`/q_I`$ in the two coordinate systems is ambiguous: they differ by a vertical component111 Differential forms are more reliable than vectorfields in this regard. Perhaps another “feminine” property of forms. Prof. S.S.Chern insists that forms are of feminine gender, vectors masculine.. This could be surprising at first sight since the forms $`dq_I`$ in the coframes $`\{dq_I,dp_I\}`$ and $`\{dq_I,dm_I\}`$ are the same. They are simply the differentials of the functions $`q_I\pi :T^{}Q\mathrm{}`$ ($`\pi :T^{}QQ`$ is the bundle projection and $`q_I:Q\mathrm{}`$ is the $`I`$-th coordinate function).

We introduce matrix notation. We write the (dual) pair frame-coframe in $`Q`$ as a line array and column array, respectively:

$$e=(e_1,\mathrm{},e_n),ϵ=\left(\begin{array}{c}ϵ_1\hfill \\ \mathrm{}\hfill \\ ϵ_n\hfill \end{array}\right)(ϵe=I_n.)$$
(7)
Write

$$ϵ_I=a_{IJ}dq_J,\mathrm{that}\mathrm{is},ϵ=Adq,A=(a_{IJ}),$$
(8)
and we recall

$$(e_1,\mathrm{},e_n)=(/q_1,\mathrm{},/q_n)B,B=A^1.$$
(9)
Then $`m_Iϵ_I=p_Jdq_J`$ implies (as we already saw) $`p_J=m_Ia_{IJ}.`$

* (The importance of being earnest) Assume $`ϵ`$ and $`dq`$ related by (8). The corresponding coframes in $`T^{}Q`$ are related by

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}dq_I\hfill \\ dp_I\hfill \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}I\hfill & 0\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Lambda }\hfill & A^{}\hfill \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}dq_J\hfill \\ dm_J\hfill \end{array}\right),$$
(10)
where

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{IJ}=m_Ka_{KI}/q_J.$$
(11)
The corresponding dual frames in $`T^{}Q`$ are related by

$$\left(X_{q_J}^ϵ/m_J\right)=\left(/q_I/p_I\right).\left(\begin{array}{cc}I\hfill & 0\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Lambda }\hfill & A^{}\hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(12)

Explicitly,

$$X_{q_J}^ϵ=/q_J+m_K(a_{KI}/q_J)\frac{}{p_J},/m_J=a_{JI}/p_I.$$
(13)
Summarizing: the vectorfields $`X_{q_I}^ϵ`$ and $`/q_I`$ are different. However, their difference is a vertical vectorfield, their projections over $`TQ`$ by $`\pi _{}:T(T^{}Q)TQ`$ coincide. We say that $`X_{q_I}^ϵ`$ acquires a spiritual component relative to the standard coordinates $`(p,q)`$.

### 2.3. Extended frame $`\{e_I^{},\frac{}{m_I}\}`$ for $`T(T^{}Q)`$ and coframe $`\{ϵ_I,dm_I\}`$ for $`T^{}(T^{}Q)`$.

We now change the first part of the the coordinate basis, $`X_{q_I}^ϵ`$, to vectors $`e_I^{}`$. The superscript  is a reminder that $`e_I^{}T(T^{}Q)`$, not to $`TQ`$ and also a reminder that it has a spiritual component. We get after a simple computation

* $$\left(\begin{array}{c}dq_I\hfill \\ dp_I\hfill \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}B\hfill & 0\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Lambda }B\hfill & A^{}\hfill \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}ϵ_L\hfill \\ dm_L\hfill \end{array}\right),$$
(14)
Dualizing, we get

$$\left(e_J^{}/m_J\right)=\left(/q_I/p_I\right).\left(\begin{array}{cc}B\hfill & 0\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Lambda }B\hfill & A^{}\hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(15)

In short, the transformation rules to the moving frame in $`T^{}Q`$ are given by (in shorthand notation), in terms of the standard coordinates $`(p,q)`$:

$$e^{}=/qB+/p\mathrm{\Lambda }B=e+/p\mathrm{\Lambda }B,$$
(16)
$$/m=/pA^{}(\mathrm{equivalently}ϵ=Adq)$$
(17)
The last equality is due to the identification $`/m_I=ϵ_I,/p_I=dq_I.`$ The extended moving coframe in $`T_{p_q}^{}(T^{}Q)`$ is $`ϵ_I,dm_I`$, dual to $`e_I^{},/m_IT_{p_q}(T^{}Q)`$.

Notice the importance of being earnest: the frames $`\{e_I\}`$ and $`\{ϵ_J\}`$ are dual in $`V=T_qQ,V^{}=T_q^{}Q`$. The frames $`\{\frac{}{m_I}\}`$ and $`\{dm_J\}`$ are dual in $`W=T_q^{}Q,W^{}=(T_q^{}Q)^{}`$, but $`\{e_I,\frac{}{m_I}\}`$ and $`\{ϵ_J,dm_J\}`$ are NOT dual in $`T_{(p,q)}T^{}Q,T_{(p,q)}^{}T^{}Q`$. The basic reason is that $`T_{(p,q)}T^{}QT_qQ\times T_q^{}Q`$. Shortly we will give the precise formula for $`e_I^{}`$.

## 3. Symplectic form in $`\{e^{},/m\}`$ and Poisson brackets in $`\{ϵ,dm\}`$

After this quite dull preparation, we are finally able to write down a more interesting formula:

* In the basis $`\{e^{},/m\}`$, the canonical symplectic form $`\mathrm{\Omega }=dpdq=dm_Iϵ_I^\mathrm{\#}+m_Idϵ_I^\mathrm{\#}`$ writes as

$$[\mathrm{\Omega }]_{\{e^{},/m\}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}E\hfill & I\hfill \\ I\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(18)
with

$$E_{JK}=m_Idϵ_I(e_J,e_K)=m_Iϵ_I[e_J,e_K]$$
(19)

Proof. We use Theorem 2.1. and Cartan’s magic formula for differentiating 1-forms111Cartan’s formula is the deepest fact used in this paper.. By duality, the first term $`dm_Iϵ_I^\mathrm{\#}`$ yields a familiar matrix:

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & I\hfill \\ I\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right).$$

The “magnetic block” $`E`$ ($`E`$ for Euler) results from employing Cartan’s formula:

$`dϵ_I^\mathrm{\#}(e_J^{},e_K^{})(\mathrm{in}T^{}Q)`$ $`=`$ $`dϵ_I(e_J,e_K)(\mathrm{in}Q)=`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`e_Jϵ_I(e_K)e_Kϵ_I(e_J)ϵ_I[e_J,e_K]`$
and we observe that the first two terms vanish.

As the Poisson structure is a skew-symmetric tensor of type $`(0,2)`$, it operates on two elements of $`T_{p_q}^{}(T^{}Q)`$. It is natural to use the basis $`\{ϵ_I,dm_I\}`$.

* The Poisson bracket matrix relative to $`ϵ_I,dm_I`$ is

$$[\mathrm{\Omega }]^1=[\mathrm{\Lambda }]=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0_n\hfill & I_n\hfill \\ I_n\hfill & E\hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(21)
Equivalently,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\underset{I}{}e_I^{}\frac{}{m_I}+\frac{1}{2}\underset{1J,Kn}{}E_{JK}\frac{}{m_J}\frac{}{m_K}.$$
(22)

We now observe that

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\underset{I}{}e_I^{}\frac{}{m_I}\frac{1}{2}E_{IJ}\frac{}{m_J}\frac{}{m_I}=\stackrel{~}{e}_I\frac{}{m_I}$$

where

$$\stackrel{~}{e}_I=e_I^{}(q)\frac{1}{2}E_{IJ}\frac{}{m_J}.$$

The $`(0,2)`$ Poisson tensor can also be written as

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\underset{I}{}\frac{}{q_I}\frac{}{p_I}=\underset{I}{}e_I\frac{}{m_I}$$
(23)
The last equality is ridiculous. As

$$e_I=b_{JI}/q_J,\frac{}{m_I}=\frac{}{p_J}a_{IJ}(\mathrm{see}(\text{17}))$$

and since $`A=B^1`$ we have

$$\underset{I}{}e_I\frac{}{m_I}=b_{JI}\frac{}{q_J}\frac{}{p_K}a_{KI}=a_{IK}b_{JI}\frac{}{q_J}\frac{}{p_K}=\delta _{KJ}\frac{}{q_J}\frac{}{p_K}=\frac{}{q_J}\frac{}{p_J}.$$

Thus one could guess that $`\stackrel{~}{e}_I=e_I`$, but in fact brute force computation gives:

$$e_I^{}(q)=e_I+m_K\frac{a_{KL}}{q_R}(b_{RI}b_{LJ}+b_{RJ}b_{LI})\frac{}{m_J}.$$
(24)
This gives the expression for the spiritual component, as promised before. Note that the second term does not contribute when wedging with $`\frac{}{m_I}`$ and performing the summation.

## 4. Examples

### 4.1. Lie groups and KAKS bracket.

Let the configuration space be a Lie group $`Q=G`$ , $`e_I`$ and $`ϵ_I`$ dual left-invariant vectorfields and forms, with structure constants defined by $`[e_J,e_K]=c_{JK}^Ie_I.`$ Then

$$E_{JK}=m_Idϵ_I(e_J,e_K)=m_Iϵ_I[e_J,e_K]=m_Ic_{JK}^I$$
(25)
does not depend on $`gG`$. Write

$$V_{p_g}^a=X_J^ae_J^{}+z_J^aϵ_JT_{p_g}(T^{}G),a=1,2$$

so

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(V^1,V^2)=(X^1,z^1)\left(\begin{array}{cc}E\hfill & I\hfill \\ I\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}X^2\hfill \\ z^2\hfill \end{array}\right)=X^2z^1X^1z^2+X^1EX^2.$$
(26)
We denote $`X_J^ae_J(\mathrm{id})=\mathrm{L}_{\mathrm{g}^1}(\pi _{}\mathrm{V}_{\mathrm{p}_\mathrm{g}}^\mathrm{a})`$ simply as $`X^a𝒢`$ and therefore

$$X^1EX^2=m_Iϵ_I(g)[X_1,X_2]_g=(L_g)^{}(p_g)[X_1^{left},X_2^{left}]_{\mathrm{id}}.$$
(27)
What if we replace left by right-invariant vectorfields $`f_I`$ and forms $`\theta _I`$? The basic formula stays the same:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(V_1,V_2)=X^2z^1X^1z^2+X^1EX^2,$$

but now $`X_J^af_J(\mathrm{id})=\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{g}^1}(\pi _{}\mathrm{V}_{\mathrm{p}_\mathrm{g}}^\mathrm{a})`$ and

$$X^1RX^2=m_I\theta _I(g)[X_1,X_2]_g=(R_g)_{}(p_g)[X_1^{right},X_2^{right}]_e.$$

where

$$[X_1^{right},X_2^{right}]_e=c_{JK}^IX_J^1X_K^2f_I.$$
(28)
Notice the extra minus sign arising from the Lie bracket structure. Here we used the well known Lie-group fact: if one extends vectors in $`𝒢`$ right invariantly the structure coefficients in the Lie bracket appear with opposite sign.

Equations (26) and (27) lead to the KAKS (Kirillov-Arnold-Kostant-Souriau) bracket in the dual $`𝒢^{}`$ of the Lie algebra 111This bracket was found independently by S. Lie . .

The commutation relations for the forms $`ϵ_I,dm_I`$ in $`T_{uϵ}^{}(T^{}G)`$ are given by

$$\{ϵ_I,ϵ_J\}=0,\{dm_I,ϵ_J\}=\delta _{IJ},\{dm_I,dm_J\}=E_{IJ}=m_Kc_{IJ}^K$$
(29)
The last commutation formula implies for $`f,g:𝒢^{}\mathrm{}`$, that at $`\mu 𝒢^{}`$,

$$\{f,g\}(\mu )=\mu [\frac{\delta }{\delta f},\frac{\delta }{\delta g}]$$
(30)
where $`df(\mu )T_\mu ^{}𝒢^{}`$ is identified with $`\frac{\delta }{\delta f}(\mu )𝒢`$.

### 4.2. Principal bundles with connection

We use heretofore the following convention: capital roman letters $`I,J,K,`$ etc., run from $`1`$ to $`n`$. Lower case roman characters $`i,j,k`$ run from $`1`$ to $`s`$. Greek characters $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma `$, etc., run from $`s+1`$ to $`n`$.

Let $`\pi :Q^nS^s`$ a principal bundle with Lie group $`G^r`$, where $`r=ns`$. For definiteness, we take $`G`$ acting on the left. Fix a connection $`\lambda =\lambda (q):T_qQ𝒢`$ defining a $`G`$-invariant distribution $``$ of horizontal subspaces. Denote by $`K(q)=d\lambda \mathrm{Hor}:T_qQ\times T_qQ𝒢`$ the curvature 2-form (which is, as well known, $`Ad`$-equivariant).

Choose a local frame $`\overline{e}_i`$ on $`S`$. For simplicity, we may assume that

$$\overline{e}_i=/s_i$$
(31)
are the coordinate vectorfields of a chart $`s:S\mathrm{}^s`$.

Let $`e_i=h(\overline{e}_i)`$ their horizontal lift to $`Q`$. We complete to a moving frame of $`Q`$ with vertical vectors $`e_\alpha `$ which we will specify in a moment. The dual basis will be denoted $`ϵ_i,ϵ_\alpha `$ and we write $`p_q=m_iϵ_i+m_\alpha ϵ_\alpha `$. These are in a sense the “lesser moving” among all the moving frames adapted to this structure. We now describe how the $`n\times n`$ matrix $`E=(E_{IJ})`$ looks like in this setting.

i) The $`s\times s`$ block $`(E_{ij})`$.

Decompose $`[e_i,e_j]=h[\overline{e}_i,\overline{e}_j]+V[e_i,e_j]=V[e_i,e_j]`$ into vertical and horizontal parts. The choice (31) is convenient, since $`\overline{e}_i`$ and $`\overline{e}_j`$ commute: $`[e_i,e_j]`$ is vertical. Hence

$$E_{ij}=p_q[e_i,e_j]=m_\alpha ϵ_\alpha [e_i,e_j].$$
(32)
Now by Cartan’s rule,

$$K(e_i,e_j)=e_i\lambda (e_j)e_j\lambda (e_i)\lambda [e_i,e_j]=\lambda [e_i,e_j]𝒢$$

Thus we have shown that

$$[e_i,e_j]_q=K(e_i,e_j)q$$
(33)
Moreover, let $`J:T^{}Q𝒢^{}`$ be the momentum mapping. We have

$$(J(p_q),K_q(e_i,e_j))=p_q(K(e_i,e_j).q)=p_q[e_i,e_j](=E_{ij})$$

* (The J.K formula)

$$E_{ij}=(J(p_q),K_q(e_i,e_j))$$
(34)

This gives a nice description for this block, under the choice $`[\overline{e}_i,\overline{e}_j]=0.`$ Notice that the functions $`E_{ij}`$ depend on $`s`$ and the components $`m_\alpha `$, but do not depend on $`g`$. This is because the $`Ad^{}`$-ambiguity of the momentum mapping $`J`$ is cancelled by the $`Ad`$-ambiguity of the curvature $`K`$.

ii) The $`r\times r`$ block $`(E_{\alpha \beta })`$.

Choose a basis $`X_\alpha `$ for $`𝒢`$. We take $`e_\alpha (q)=X_\alpha q`$ as the vertical distribution. Choosing a point $`q_o`$ allows identifying the Lie group $`G`$ with the fiber containing $`Gq_o`$, so that $`\mathrm{id}q_o`$. Through the mapping $`gGgq_oGq_o`$ the vectorfied $`e_\alpha `$ is identified to a right (not left!) invariant vectorfield in $`G`$. Thus the commutation relations for the $`e_\alpha `$ are as in (28) so that $`[e_\alpha ,e_\beta ]=c_{\alpha \beta }^\gamma e_\gamma `$ appears with a minus sign. Therefore

$$E_{\alpha \beta }=m_\gamma c_{\alpha \beta }^\gamma .$$
(35)
iii) The $`s\times n`$ block $`(E_{i\alpha })`$.

The vectors $`[e_i,e_\alpha ]`$ are vertical, but their values depend on the specific principal bundle one is working with. Given a section $`\sigma :U_SQ`$ over the coordinate chart $`s:U_S\mathrm{}^m`$ on $`S`$, we need to know the coefficients $`b_{i\alpha }^\gamma `$ in the expansion

$$[e_i,e_\alpha ](\sigma (s))=b_{i\alpha }^\gamma (s)e_\gamma .$$

Then

$$E_{i\alpha }(\sigma (s))=m_\gamma b_{i\alpha }^\gamma (s).$$
(36)
At another point on the fiber, we need the adjoint representation $`Ad_g:𝒢𝒢,Xg_{}^1Xg,`$ described by a matrix $`(A_{\mu \alpha }(g))`$ such that

$$Ad_g(X_\alpha )=A_{\mu \alpha }(g)X_\mu .$$
(37)
Then

$$[e_i,e_\alpha ](g\sigma (s))=m_\gamma b_{i\mu }^\gamma (s)A_{\mu \alpha }(g).$$
(38)
## 5. Nonholonomic mechanics

Consider the Lagrange-D’Alembert equations

$$X_L^{D^{}A}:\frac{d}{dt}L/\dot{q}L/q=\lambda A,A\dot{q}=0,$$
(39)
with $`q\mathrm{}^n,\lambda \mathrm{}^r,A(q)`$ a $`r\times n`$ matrix. For the regularity assumptions, see .

More intrisically, the constraint equations define a $`s=nr`$ dimensional distribution $``$ of subspaces $`E_qT_qQ`$. The constraint forces $`\lambda AT_q^{}Q`$ belong to the annihilator $`^{}`$, of $``$. This is a distribution of $`r`$-dimensional subspaces $`E_q^{}T_q^{}Q`$. Under the Legendre transformation $`\mathrm{Leg}:TQT^{}Q,p=\frac{L}{\dot{q}},L+H=p\dot{q}`$ the Lagrange-D’Alembert system (39) of equations $`(q,\dot{q})X_L^{D^{}A}(q,\dot{q})T`$ transforms into the vectorfield $`(q,p)\mathrm{Leg}()X_H^{D^{}A}(q,\dot{q})T\mathrm{Leg}()`$ given by the differential-algebraic system

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(X_H^{D^{}A}+\lambda ,)=dH(),T(T^{}Q),\lambda E^{},\pi _{}X_H^{D^{}A}(q,p)E_q$$
(40)
where $`\pi :T^{}QQ`$ is the bundle projection. Here we identify the the constraint forces (semibasic vectors) $`\lambda (p,q)T_{p_q}(T_q^{}Q)T(T^{}Q)`$ as elements of $`E_q^{}T^{}Q`$.

The ODEs (39) restricted to $`(q,\dot{q})`$ must satisfy $`X_L^{D^{}A}(q,\dot{q})T`$ (self-consistency requirement). The process of “eliminating the multiplier” $`\lambda `$ involves differentiating the condition $`A(q)\dot{q}=0`$. In other words, self-consistency is precisely what is used to construct the system of ODEs, “eliminating the multipliers” $`\lambda `$. This step involves differentiating the condition $`A(q)\dot{q}=0`$.

### 5.1. Equations of motion.

Consider an adapted frame $`e_i,e_\alpha `$ to $``$ (this means that $`e_i(q)E_q`$) and its dual coframe $`ϵ_i,ϵ_\alpha `$. Notice that we are not assuming that $`e_\alpha `$ are orthogonal to $`E_q`$ with respect to a given metric. In fact, when $`H`$ comes from a natural Lagrangian $`L=TV`$, it seems natural to choose $`e_I`$ orthonormal with respect to $`T`$, as proposed by Cartan . However in the presence of symmetries transversal to the constraints, it may be more interesting to choose the $`e_\alpha `$ as vectorfields generated by the symmetries . See section 5.2. below.

Our approach emphasizes the Lie brackets of the frame vectorfields, but some authors prefer to compute the almost Poisson bracket entirely within the bracket formalism using suitable projections, see . We write in full the defining equation (40):

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(v_je_j^{}+\dot{m}_J/m_J+\lambda _\alpha /m_\alpha ,A_Ie_I^{}+B_I/m_I)=dH(A_Ie_I^{}+B_I/m_I),$$

$$X_H^{D^{}A}=v_je_j^{}+\dot{m}_J/m_J,\lambda =\lambda _\alpha /m_\alpha ,=A_Ie_I^{}+B_I/m_I.$$
(41)
Here the superscript “D’A” stands for constrained Lagrange-D’Alembert, not to be confused with constrained variational type . Using Theorem 3. we get

$$v_kB_k+\lambda _\alpha A_\alpha +\dot{m}_JA_J+v_jE_{jI}A_I=A_RdH(e_R^{})B_S\frac{H}{m_S}$$
(42)
Equating the coefficients of $`A_R`$ and $`B_S`$ we obtain the equations for nonholonomic systems. First notice that in the left hand side there are no terms with $`B_\alpha `$, hence we are forced to work in the subset $`P`$ of $`T^{}Q`$ given by $`\frac{H}{m_\alpha }=0,\alpha =s+1,\mathrm{},n.`$

* An “Operational System” for nonholonomic systems:
(i) The condition

$$\frac{H}{m_\alpha }=0,\alpha =s+1,\mathrm{},n$$
(43)
is equivalent to $`P=\mathrm{Leg}()`$, where $`\mathrm{Leg}:TQT^{}Q`$ is the Legendre transformation. Assume the hypotesis for the implicit function theorem ($`P`$ intersects $`^{}`$ transversaly) so we can solve for the $`m_\alpha =m_\alpha (q,m_k)`$ in terms of the $`n+s`$ variables $`q,m_k`$.
(ii) The dynamic equations are given by:

$$v_i=\frac{H}{m_i},\dot{m}_i+v_kE_{ki}=dH_{|(q,m)}(e_i^{})$$
(44)
where for $`m=(m_i,m_\alpha )`$ the $`m_\alpha `$ are as in (i).
(iii) The multipliers are explicitly given by

$$\lambda _\alpha =\dot{u}_\alpha v_jE_{j\alpha }dH_{|(q,m)}(e_\alpha ^{})$$
(45)

In practice, the reader should not fear having difficulties in computing $`dH_{|(q,m)}(e_i^{})`$. Recall the earnest duality $`\{e_I^{},/m_J\}`$ to $`\{ϵ_K,dm_L\}`$, so it sufficies to write

$$dH=\alpha _Iϵ_I+\beta _Jdm_J,$$
(46)
so $`dH(e_I^{})=\alpha _I,dH(/m_J)=\beta _J.`$

The standard approach to eliminate the constraints $`\lambda `$ in (39) requires differentiating the constraint equations $`A\dot{q}=0`$. The symplectic approach seems to be merely an algebraic calculation, but this is not the case. Differentiation is automatically built in the algebra since we differentiate the $`ϵ_I`$. Equivalently, the almost Poisson bracket approach, first introduced by van der Schaft $`\&`$ Maschke , also requires a differentiation, namely taking the Lie bracket of vectorfields satisfying the constraint equations.

### 5.2. Reduction

Identify a point of $`P`$ with its coordinates $`(q,m_k)`$. Therefore, in order to compute the $`(n+s)\times (n+s)`$ (almost)-Poisson matrix, with respect to the basis $`ϵ_I,dm_k`$ it sufficies to cut the last $`r=ns`$ rows and columns of $`[\mathrm{\Lambda }]`$ in (21). This gives

$$[\mathrm{\Lambda }]_{constrained}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0_{s\times s}\hfill & 0_{s\times r}\hfill & I_{s\times s}\hfill \\ 0_{r\times s}\hfill & 0_{r\times r}\hfill & 0_{r\times s}\hfill \\ I_{s\times s}\hfill & 0_{s\times r}\hfill & E^c\hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(47)
where

$$E_{jk}^c=p_q[e_j,e_k],j,k=1,\mathrm{},s$$
(48)
and $`p_qPT^{}Q`$ is the point with coordinates $`q,m_k,m_\alpha `$ satisfying

$$m_\alpha =m_\alpha (q,m_k).$$

Notice that the middle rows and columns vanish. In the presence of transversal symmetries yielding a principal bundle $`G^rQ^nS^s`$, we can “zip” (compress) the system down to an almost Poisson structure in $`T^{}S`$. Let $`H^{}(q,m_i)=H(q,m_i,m_\alpha (q,m_i))`$. Since $`H/m_\alpha =0`$, we have $`H^{}/q=H/q,H^{}/m_i=H/m_i`$ so the right hand side in Theorem 5.1. is preserved under reduction.

In many nonholonomic systems such as a rigid convex body rolling on a flat plane, the symmetry group does indeed intersect the constraints transversally. Internal symmetries (that is, satisfying the constraints) will produce conserved quantities  and the quest for integrability of the reduced system.

We have observed in very simple examples  that the compressed system is sometimes conformally symplectic. However, further work on these issues indicate that such a property is far from being the rule. We will report on this work elsewhere.

### 5.3. Final remarks

Local symplectic geometry is considered to be trivial due to Darboux theorem. Global symplectic geometry is reputed to be difficult111Recently however, H. Hofer proposed introducing piecewise linear symplectic structures as a way to pass from local to global.. We believe that moving frames can be useful for studying manifolds endowed with a distinguished skew-symmetric structure (symplectic, Poisson, Dirac, Jacobi, quasi-Poisson, almost-Poisson…) together with some completing structure (homogeneous, riemannian, Kahler…), for which the Darboux charts could become cumbersome.

Also, ODEs for nonholonomic systems have been derived again and again, but the main question remains open: to construct a theory for nonholonomic systems, similar to that Hamilton and Jacobi created for holonomic systems. In future work we will present some ideas on the issues of symmetry, reduction and integrability. Here we just present two simple observations to conclude this paper 222These remarks are in line with the viewpoint that nonholonomic systems bear many similarities with holonomic systems, as pointed out by Prof. Śniatycki in this meeting..

It is common knowledge that constraints count in double holonomic mechanics. The Lagrangian vectorfield is a spray: a restriction on $`\dot{q}`$ affects its “twin brother” in $`T(TQ)`$. This suggests that constraints also count in double for nonholonomic systems. Using the identification $`/m_\alpha ϵ_\alpha `$ (a vertical vector), it follows that

$$H/m_\alpha =dH_{|(q,m)}(ϵ_\alpha )=ϵ_\alpha (q)(H/p)=ϵ_\alpha (q)(\dot{q}).$$
(49)
Here we consider $`H/pT_qQ(T_q^{}Q)^{}(T_{p_q}T^{}Q)^{}`$. Therefore, condition (i) is a consequence of the constraint $`\dot{q}E_q`$. This condition “does it twice”, in the construction of the reduced space $`P`$ and in the projection to $`Q`$. The vanishing middle rows and columns in (47) means the almost Poisson bracket of $`ϵ_\alpha `$ with any differential $`\xi T_{p_q}^{}(T^{}Q)`$ is zero. We call $`ϵ_\alpha `$ a almost Casimir. As for an ordinary Casimir in Poisson geometry, this implies that $`ϵ_\alpha (X)=0`$ for any constrained vectorfield $`X`$, equivalent to the statement that $`\pi _{}(X)`$. Any exact combination of the $`ϵ_\alpha `$’s will produce a bona fide Casimir function on $`P`$. Actually, these will be functions on $`Q`$, because the $`ϵ_\alpha `$ are basic differentials. Since we are interested in strictly nonholonomic systems, we may assume that no exact combinations exist 333This does not rule out “gauge conservation laws”, see .eg. , which appear whenever a combination of group action generators satisfies the constraints..

We finish with a spiritual observation, which we hope proper, both in terms of mathematics and religion as well. Mathematicians use a universal handwaving gesture to represent a riemannian manifold, through a moving frame attached to it. A similar gesture to represent a symplectic manifold is in order. We believe that such gesture (“mudra”) may be found in Buddhism: Siddhartha’s right hand explores the earth (a lagrangian submanifold), the left hand explores the spiritual fiber (another lagrangian submanifold). In so doing, the earthly hand acquires a spiritual component.


format: text

text:
# Effect of the additional second neighbor hopping on the charge dynamics in the t-J model

## Abstract

The effect of the additional second neighbor hopping $`t^{}`$ on the charge dynamics of the $`t`$-$`J`$ model in the underdoped regime is studied within the fermion-spin theory. The conductivity spectrum of the $`t`$-$`t^{}`$-$`J`$ model shows the low-energy peak and unusual midinfrared band, while the resistivity exhibits a nearly temperature linear dependence with deviation at low temperature in the underdoped regime. Although the qualitative feature of the charge dynamics in the $`t`$-$`t^{}`$-$`J`$ model is the same as in the case of the $`t`$-$`J`$ model, the additional second neighbor hopping $`t^{}`$ leads to a clear shift of the position of the midinfrared band to the higher energies in the conductivity spectrum, and suppress the range of the deviation from the temperature linear dependence in the resistivity.

It has become clear in the past several years that copper oxide materials show many unusual normal-state properties . The normal-state properties exhibit a number of anomalous properties in the sense that they do not fit in the conventional Fermi-liquid theory, and some properties mainly depend on the extent of dopings . Among the striking features of the anomalous normal-state properties stands out the extraordinary charge dynamics, which is manifested by the optical conductivity and resistivity . It has been shown from the experiments  that the optical conductivity spectrum of copper oxide materials shows the non-Drude behavior at low energies and exotic midinfrared band in the charge-transfer gap, while the resistivity exhibits a linear behavior in the temperature in the optimally doped regime and a nearly temperature linear dependence with deviations at low temperatures in the underdoped regime. The single common feature of copper oxide materials is the two-dimensional (2D) $`\mathrm{CuO}_2`$ plane , and it seems evident that the anomalous behaviors are governed by this plane. Since the copper oxide superconductors are doped Mott insulators, many authors  have suggested that the essential physics of these materials can be effectively described by the 2D $`t`$-$`J`$ model acting on the space with no doubly occupied sites, where $`t`$ is the nearest neighbor hopping matrix element, and $`J`$ is the nearest neighbor magnetic exchange interaction. This model has been used to study the charge dynamics of copper oxide materials in the underdoped regime, and the results obtained  from the analytical methods and numerical simulations are in qualitative agreement with the experiments .

However, the recent angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy measurements  on copper oxide materials show that although the highest energy filled electron band is well described by the $`t`$-$`J`$ model in the direction between the $`(0,0)`$ point and the $`(\pi ,\pi )`$ point in the momentum space, but both the experimental data near $`(\pi ,0)`$ point and overall dispersion may be properly accounted by generalizing the $`t`$-$`J`$ model to include the second- and third-nearest neighbors hopping terms $`t^{}`$ and $`t^{\prime \prime }`$. These photoemission results also show that the electron band width is reduced from the several eV expected from the band theory to of order $`J`$, which indicates that the coupling of the electron to the antiferromagnetic background plays an important role in the electronic structure . On the other hand, the charge response is a powerful probe for the systems of interacting electrons, and provides very detailed informations of the excitations, which interact with carriers in the normal-state . It is believed that both experiments from the angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy measurements and charge response produce interesting data that introduce important constraints on the microscopic models and theories. In this case, a natural question is what is the effect of these additional hoppings on the charge dynamics of the $`t`$-$`J`$ model. In this paper, we study this issue within $`t`$-$`t^{}`$-$`J`$ model. Our results indicate that the conductivity spectrum of the $`t`$-$`t^{}`$-$`J`$ model shows the low-energy peak and unusual midinfrared band, while the resistivity exhibits a nearly temperature linear dependence with deviation at low temperature in the underdoped regime. Although these qualitative feature of the charge dynamics in the $`t`$-$`t^{}`$-$`J`$ model is the same as in the case of the $`t`$-$`J`$ model , the additional second neighbor hopping $`t^{}`$ leads to a clear shift of the position of the midinfrared band to the higher energies in the conductivity spectrum, and suppress the range of the deviation from the temperature linear dependence in the resistivity.

We begin with the $`t`$-$`t^{}`$-$`J`$ model defined on a square lattice,

$`H=t{\displaystyle \underset{i\widehat{\eta }\sigma }{}}C_{i\sigma }^{}C_{i+\widehat{\eta }\sigma }+t^{}{\displaystyle \underset{i\widehat{\tau }\sigma }{}}C_{i\sigma }^{}C_{i+\widehat{\tau }\sigma }+\mu {\displaystyle \underset{i\sigma }{}}C_{i\sigma }^{}C_{i\sigma }+J{\displaystyle \underset{i\widehat{\eta }}{}}𝐒_i𝐒_{i+\widehat{\eta }},`$ (1)
where $`\widehat{\eta }=\pm \widehat{x},\pm \widehat{y}`$, $`\widehat{\tau }=\pm \widehat{x}\pm \widehat{y}`$, $`C_{i\sigma }^{}`$ ($`C_{i\sigma }`$) is the electron creation (annihilation) operator, $`𝐒_i=C_i^{}\sigma C_i/2`$ are spin operators with $`\sigma =(\sigma _x,\sigma _y,\sigma _z)`$ as the Pauli matrices, and $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential. The strong electron correlation in the $`t`$-$`J`$ and $`t`$-$`t^{}`$-$`J`$ model manifests itself by this electron single occupancy on-site local constraint , and then the on-site local constraint should be treated properly. Recently a fermion-spin theory based on the charge-spin separation , $`C_i=h_i^{}S_i^{}`$ and $`C_i=h_i^{}S_i^+`$, has been proposed to incorprate this on-site local constraint, where the spinless fermion operator $`h_i`$ describes the charge (holon) degrees of freedom, while the pseudospin operator $`S_i`$ describes the spin (spinon) degrees of freedom. The main advantage of this approach is that the on-site local constraint can be treated exactly in analytical calculations. In the fermion-spin representation, the $`t`$-$`t^{}`$-$`J`$ model can be expressed  as,

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`t{\displaystyle \underset{i\widehat{\eta }}{}}h_{i+\widehat{\eta }}^{}h_i(S_i^+S_{i+\widehat{\eta }}^{}+S_i^{}S_{i+\widehat{\eta }}^+)t^{}{\displaystyle \underset{i\widehat{\tau }}{}}h_{i+\widehat{\tau }}^{}h_i(S_i^+S_{i+\widehat{\tau }}^{}+S_i^{}S_{i+\widehat{\tau }}^+)`$ (2)
$``$ $`\mu {\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}h_i^{}h_i+J_{eff}{\displaystyle \underset{i\widehat{\eta }}{}}(𝐒_i𝐒_{i+\widehat{\eta }}),`$ (3)
where $`J_{eff}=J[(1\delta )^2\varphi _1^2]`$, the holon particle-hole order parameter $`\varphi _1=h_i^{}h_{i+\widehat{\eta }}`$, and $`S_i^+`$ and $`S_i^{}`$ are the pseudospin raising and lowering operators, respectively.

Since the on-site electron local constraint has been treated exactly within the framework of the fermion-spin theory, then the extra gauge degree of freedom related with the electron on-site local constraint under the charge-spin separation does not appear in the fermion-spin theory. In this case, the spin fluctuation couples only to spinons , while the charge fluctuation couples only to holons , but the strong correlation between holons and spinons still is considered through the holon’s order parameters entering in the spinon’s propagator and the spinon’s order parameters entering in the holon’s propagator, therefore both holons and spinons contribute to the charge and spin dynamics. Within the fermion-spin theory, the charge dynamics of the $`t`$-$`J`$ model in the underdoped regime has been discussed  by considering the holon fluctuation around the mean-field solution, where the holon part is treated by the loop expansion to the second-order. Following their discussions, we can obtain the optical conductivity in the present $`t`$-$`t^{}`$-$`J`$ model as,

$`\sigma (\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(2Ze)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\gamma _{sk}^2{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega ^{}}{2\pi }}A_h(k,\omega ^{}+\omega )A_h(k,\omega ^{}){\displaystyle \frac{n_F(\omega ^{}+\omega )n_F(\omega ^{})}{\omega }},`$ (4)
where $`Z`$ is the number of the nearest neighbor or second-nearest neighbor sites, $`\gamma _{sk}=t\chi _1(\mathrm{sin}k_x+\mathrm{sin}k_y)/2t^{}\chi _2(\mathrm{sin}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y+\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{sin}k_y)`$, the spinon correlation functions $`\chi _1=S_i^+S_{i+\widehat{\eta }}^{}`$, $`\chi _2=S_i^+S_{i+\widehat{\tau }}^{}`$, $`n_F(\omega )`$ is the fermion distribution function, and the holon spectral function $`A_h(k,\omega )`$ is obtained as $`A_h(k,\omega )=2\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}g(k,\omega )`$. The full holon Green’s function $`g^1(k,\omega )=g^{(0)1}(k,\omega )\mathrm{\Sigma }_h^{(2)}(k,\omega )`$ with the mean-field holon Green’s function $`g^{(0)1}(k,\omega )=\omega \xi _k`$ and the second-order holon self-energy from the spinon pair bubble ,

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_h^{(2)}(k,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{Z}{N}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \underset{pp^{}}{}}\gamma _{12}^2(k,p,p^{}){\displaystyle \frac{B_p^{}B_{p+p^{}}}{4\omega _p^{}\omega _{p+p^{}}}}\times (2{\displaystyle \frac{F_1(k,p,p^{})}{\omega +\omega _{p+p^{}}\omega _p^{}\xi _{p+k}}}`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{F_2(k,p,p^{})}{\omega +\omega _p^{}+\omega _{p+p^{}}\xi _{p+k}}}{\displaystyle \frac{F_3(k,p,p^{})}{\omega \omega _{p+p^{}}\omega _p^{}\xi _{p+k}}}),`$ (6)
where $`\gamma _{12}(k,p,p^{})=t(\gamma _{𝐩^{}𝐤}+\gamma _{𝐩^{}+𝐩+𝐤})t^{}(\gamma _{𝐩^{}𝐤}^{}+\gamma _{𝐩^{}+𝐩+𝐤}^{})`$, $`\gamma _𝐤=(1/Z)_{\widehat{\eta }}e^{i𝐤\widehat{\eta }}`$, $`\gamma _𝐤^{}=(1/Z)_{\widehat{\tau }}e^{i𝐤\widehat{\tau }}`$, $`F_1(k,p,p^{})=n_F(\xi _{p+k})[n_B(\omega _p^{})n_B(\omega _{p+p^{}})]+n_B(\omega _{p+p^{}})[1+n_B(\omega _p^{})]`$, $`F_2(k,p,p^{})=n_F(\xi _{p+k})[1+n_B(\omega _{p+p^{}})+n_B(\omega _p^{})]+n_B(\omega _p^{})n_B(\omega _{p+p^{}})`$, $`F_3(k,p,p^{})=n_F(\xi _{p+k)}[1+n_B(\omega _{p+p^{}})+n_B(\omega _p^{})][1+n_B(\omega _p^{})][1+n_B(\omega _{p+p^{}})]`$, $`n_B(\omega _p)`$ is the boson distribution functions, $`B_k=\mathrm{\Delta }_1[2\chi _1^z(ϵ\gamma _𝐤1)+\chi _1(\gamma _𝐤ϵ)]\mathrm{\Delta }_2(2\chi _2^z\gamma _𝐤^{}\chi _2)`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1=2ZJ_{eff}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2=4Z\varphi _2t^{}`$, $`ϵ=1+2t\varphi _1/J_{eff}`$, the mean-field holon spectrum $`\xi _k=2Zt\chi _1\gamma _𝐤2Zt^{}\chi _2\gamma _𝐤^{}\mu `$, and the mean-field spinon spectrum,

$`\omega _k^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2([\alpha C_1^z+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4Z}}(1\alpha )\alpha ϵ\chi _1^z\gamma _k{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2Z}}\alpha ϵ\chi _1](1ϵ\gamma _k)`$ (7)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ[\alpha C_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2Z}}(1\alpha )\alpha \chi _1\gamma _k{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha \chi _1^z](ϵ\gamma _k))`$ (8)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2^2\left([\alpha \chi _2^z\gamma _k^{}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2Z}}\alpha \chi _2]\gamma _k^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\alpha C_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2Z}}(1\alpha ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha \chi _2^z]\right)`$ (9)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_2(\alpha \chi _1^z\gamma _k^{}(1ϵ\gamma _k)+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}(\chi _1\gamma _k^{}C_3)(ϵ\gamma _k)+\alpha \gamma _k^{}(C_3^zϵ\chi _2^z\gamma _k)`$ (10)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha ϵ(C_3\chi _2\gamma _k)),`$ (11)
with the spinon correlation functions $`\chi _1^z=S_i^zS_{i+\widehat{\eta }}^z`$, $`\chi _2^z=S_i^zS_{i+\widehat{\tau }}^z`$, $`C_1=(1/Z)_{\widehat{\eta ^{}}}S_{i+\widehat{\eta }}^+S_{i+\widehat{\eta ^{}}}^{}`$, $`C_1^z=(1/Z)_{\widehat{\eta ^{}}}S_{i+\widehat{\eta }}^zS_{i+\widehat{\eta ^{}}}^z`$, $`C_2=(1/Z)_{\widehat{\tau ^{}}}S_{i+\widehat{\tau }}^+S_{i+\widehat{\tau ^{}}}^{}`$, $`C_3=(1/Z)_{\widehat{\tau }}S_{i+\widehat{\eta }}^+S_{i+\widehat{\tau }}^{}`$, $`C_3^z=(1/Z)_{\widehat{\tau }}S_{i+\widehat{\eta }}^zS_{i+\widehat{\tau }}^z`$, and the holon particle-hole order parameter $`\varphi _2=h_i^{}h_{i+\widehat{\tau }}`$. In order not to violate the sum rule of the correlation function $`S_i^+S_i^{}=1/2`$ in the case without antiferromagnetic long-range-order, the important decoupling parameter $`\alpha `$ has been introduced in the mean-field calculation, which can be regarded as the vertex correction . All the above mean-field order parameters are determined by the self-consistent calculation .

Although the charge dynamics of the copper oxide materials is very complicated, the transport studies of electron excitations have revealed much about the nature of the charge carriers . In this paper, we are interested in the effect of the additional second-neighbor hopping on the charge dynamics of the $`t`$-$`J`$ model. To make the discussion simpler, we only study the charge dynamics of the $`t`$-$`t^{}`$-$`J`$ model in the underdoped regime. We have performed the numerical calculation for the optical conductivity of the $`t`$-$`t^{}`$-$`J`$ model, and the zero temperature results with doping concentration (a) $`\delta =0.06`$ and (b) $`\delta =0.12`$ for parameter $`t/J=2.5`$, $`t^{}/J=0.1`$ (dashed line), $`t^{}/J=0.3`$ (dotted line), and $`t^{}/J=0.5`$ (dash-dotted line) are plotted in Fig. 1, where we have taken charge $`e`$ as the unit. For comparison, the corresponding result  of the $`t`$-$`J`$ model (solid line) is also shown in Fig. 1. The conductivity spectrum of the $`t`$-$`t^{}`$-$`J`$ model shows the low-energy peak at $`\omega <0.5t`$ and midinfrared band appearing inside the charge-transfer gap of the undoped systems. Although the qualitative feature of the conductivity spectrum in the $`t`$-$`t^{}`$-$`J`$ model is the same as in the case of the $`t`$-$`J`$ model , the additional second neighbor hopping $`t^{}`$ leads to a clear shift of the position of the midinfrared band to the higher energies in the conductivity spectrum. Moreover, the charge-transfer gap in the conductivity is doping dependent, decreases with increasing dopings. Since the spectral weight from both the low-energy peak and midinfrared sideband represents the actual free-carrier density, the suppression of the midinfrared band with increasing dopings means that only few amount of the free-carrier are taken from the Drude absorption to the midinfrared band, which leads to the unusual decay of conductivity at low energies as $`\sigma (\omega )1/\omega `$ in the underdoped regime, which are consistent with the experiments .

The quantity which is closely related to the optical conductivity is the resistivity, which can be expressed as $`\rho (T)=1/\sigma _0(T)`$ where the dc conductivity $`\sigma _0(T)`$ can be obtained from Eq. (3) as $`\sigma _0(T)=lim_{\omega 0}\sigma (\omega )`$. This resistivity has been calculated numerically, and the results at doping concentration $`\delta =0.06`$ for parameter $`t/J=2.5`$, (a) $`t^{}=0`$ and (b) $`t^{}/J=0.1`$ are shown in Fig. 2(a) and Fig. 2(b), respectively. From Fig. 2, we find that in the underdoping the resistivity indeed exhibits a nearly temperature linear dependence with deviation at low temperature, which also is in agreement with the experiments . In the previous study of the charge dynamics based on the $`t`$-$`J`$ model , it is shown that the range of the deviation from the temperature linear dependence in the resistivity in the $`t`$-$`J`$ model is suppressed with increasing dopings. However, our present results based on the $`t`$-$`t^{}`$-$`J`$ model show that for the same doping, this range of the deviation from the temperature linear dependence in the resistivity is also suppressed with increasing the values of $`t^{}`$.

Since the scattering of holons dominates the charge dynamics in the fermion-spin theory, therefore the present study indicates that in the underdoped regime the observed crossover from the temperature linear to the nonlinear range in the resistivity in low temperatures is closely related to the pseudogap in holon excitations. This can be understood from the physical property of the holon density of states (DOS) $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\omega )=1/N_kA_h(k,\omega )`$ . The numerical result of the holon DOS $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\omega )`$ at doping $`\delta =0.06`$ for parameters $`t/J=2.5`$ and $`t^{}=0`$ in temperature $`T`$=0 is shown in Fig. 3. For comparison, the corresponding mean-field result (dashed line) is also shown in Fig. 3. From Fig. 3, it is found that the holon DOS in the mean-field approximation consists of the central part only, which comes from the noninteracting particles. After including fluctuations the central part is renormalized and a V-shape holon pseudogap near the chemical potential $`\mu `$ in the underdoped regime appears. For the further understanding the physical property of this holon pseudogap, we plot the phase diagram $`T^{}\delta `$ at parameters $`t/J=2.5`$ and $`t^{}=0`$ in Fig. 4, where $`T^{}`$ marks the development of the holon pseudogap in the holon density of states. As seen from Fig. 4, this holon pseudogap is doping and temperature dependent, and grows monotonously as the doping $`\delta `$ decreases, and disappear in higher doping. Moreover, this holon pseudogap decreases with increasing temperatures, and vanishes at higher temperatures. Now we discuss the effect of $`t^{}`$ on the pseudogap. In Fig. 5, we plot the phase diagram $`T^{}t^{}`$ at doping $`\delta =0.06`$ with parameters $`t/J=2.5`$, which shows that the holon pseudogap also decreases with increasing the values of $`t^{}`$, and vanishes for $`t^{}/J>0.1`$. The $`t`$-$`J`$ model is characterized by a competition between the kinetic energy ($`t`$) and magnetic energy ($`J`$). The magnetic energy $`J`$ favors the magnetic order for spins, while the kinetic energy $`t`$ favors delocalization of holes and tends to destroy the magnetic order. Our results show that the additional second neighbor hopping $`t^{}`$ in the $`t`$-$`J`$ model may be equivalent to increase the kinetic energy, and its influence on the charge dynamics of the $`t`$-$`J`$ model is similar to the effect of dopings. This is why at least for small values of $`t^{}`$ the qualitative behavior of the charge dynamics in the $`t`$-$`t^{}`$-$`J`$ model is the same as these obtained  from the $`t`$-$`J`$ model. Since the full holon Green’s function (then the holon spectral function and DOS) is obtained by considering the second-order correction due to the spinon pair bubble, therefore the holon pseudogap is closely related to the spinon fluctuation. For small dopings and lower temperatures, the holon kinetic energy is much smaller than the magnetic energy, in this case the magnetic fluctuation is strong enough to lead to the holon pseudogap. This holon pseudogap would reduce the holon scattering and thus is responsible for the deviation from the temperature linear behavior in the resistivity. With increasing temperatures, dopings, or values of $`t^{}`$ , the holon kinetic energy is increased, while the spinon magnetic energy is decreased. In the region where the holon pseudogap closes at high temperatures, higher doping levels, or for large values of $`t^{}`$, the charged holon scattering would give rise to the temperature linear resistivity.

In summary, we have discussed the effect of the additional second neighbor hopping $`t^{}`$ on the charge dynamics of the $`t`$-$`J`$ model in the underdoped regime within the fermion-spin theory. Our results indicate that the conductivity spectrum of the $`t`$-$`t^{}`$-$`J`$ model shows the low-energy peak and unusual midinfrared band, while the resistivity exhibits a nearly temperature linear dependence with deviation at low temperature in the underdoped regime. Although the qualitative feature of the charge dynamics in the $`t`$-$`t^{}`$-$`J`$ model is the same as in the case of the $`t`$-$`J`$ model, the additional second neighbor hopping $`t^{}`$ leads to a clear shift of the position of the midinfrared band to the higher energies in the conductivity spectrum, and suppress the range of the deviation from the temperature linear dependence in the resistivity.

Finally, we also note that some physical properties of the $`t`$-$`t^{}`$-$`J`$ model have been discussed by Martins et al. , they found that there is a tendency of holes to generate nontrivial spin environments, this effect leads to decouple charge from spin. Moreover, they  have shown that introducing $`t^{}`$ in the $`t`$-$`J`$ model is equivalent to effectively renormalizing $`J`$ (decreasing the magnetic energy). Therefore, within the charge-spin separation of the $`t`$-$`t^{}`$-$`J`$ model, the scattering of spinons dominates the spin dynamics , while the scattering of holons dominates the charge dynamics, the two rates observed in the experiments are attributed to the scattering of two distinct excitations, spinons and holons.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 10074007, 90103024, and 10125415, and the Grant from Ministry of Education of China.


text:
# Noncommutative D-brane and Open String in pp-wave Background with B-field

## 1 Introduction

Recently a new maximal supersymmetric IIB supergravity background, the so called pp-wave RR background, was discovered . The pp-wave background consists of a plane wave metric, supported by a homogeneous RR 5-form flux

$`ds^2=\mathrm{f}^2x^ix^i(dx^+)^2+2dx^+dx^{}+dx^idx^i,i=1,\mathrm{},8,`$ (1.1)
$`F_5=\mathrm{f}dx^+(dx^1dx^2dx^3dx^4+dx^5dx^6dx^7dx^8).`$ (1.2)
A constant Euclidean metric $`g_{ij}`$ can be introduced easily. We will do so in section 3. This background has 32 supersymmetries and is related to the $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ background  by a Penrose limit . Moreover it is remarkable that string theory in this background is exactly solvable . The understanding of the properties of string theory in this background is very valuable and is of great interest. The Green-Schwarz formulation of closed string in pp-wave background has been performed by Metsaev  (see also ). Boundary states for the lightcone GS strings in pp-wave background has been constructed . The covariant NSR formulation remains illusive however.

It is natural to ask whether there is a meaning of the “Penrose limit” for the celebrated AdS/CFT correspondence . Based on the spectrum of the lightcone Hamiltonian, Berenstein, Maldacena and Nastase  had put forward a remarkable proposal that string theory on this pp-wave background is dual to the large $`N`$ limit of a certain subsector of the 4-dimensional supersymmetric $`𝒩=4`$ $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory. Various aspects as well as generalizations had been considered in .

D-branes are basic objects in the nonperturbative formulation of string theory. One of the developments in the last few years of string theory is the realization that a constant $`B`$-field on a D-brane leads to noncommutative geometry on the D-brane worldvolume . In this setting, the $`B`$-field and the string length square $`\alpha ^{}`$ are both dimensionful. Therefore, it is conceivable that a double scaling limit may be taken so that certain dimensionful parameter remains in the low energy limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$. This is precisely what Seiberg and Witten did  and remarkably they obtained as the low energy limit a noncommutative field theory with the dimensionful noncommutativity parameters $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$. It is an interesting question whether there are other string backgrounds for which new kind of noncommutative geometries arise.

Now string in pp-wave is exactly solvable (at least in the GS formulation), and there is a mass parameter $`m`$ (see (3.27) below) in addition to $`\alpha ^{}`$. If we also turn on a $`B`$-field, then we have three dimensionful parameters at our disposal. It is therefore very natural to consider a D-brane with a constant $`B`$-field sitting in the pp-wave background and check whether any new kind of quantum geometry arises, and to consider the possible scaling limits in the low energy. This is the main motivation of our work.

We recall that from the point of view of , noncommutative geometry on the D-brane worldvolume is a direct consequence of the open string mixed boundary condition that occurs due to the nonzero $`B`$-field. This gives rise to a noncommutativity of the string zero mode $`x_0^i`$ among themselves, but leaves the momentum zero mode $`p_0^i`$ commuting among themselves. As it turns out, we will find that by turning on a mass parameter $`m`$, $`p_0^i`$ also becomes noncommuting. Thus the phase space of the zero modes $`x_0,p_0`$ becomes fully noncommuting, see (3.52)–(3.54). Moreover we find that the noncommutativity depends on the lightcone momentum $`p^+`$. This is one of the main results of this paper. Its physical meaning is intriguing and further understanding of it will be important. An immediate consequence of the commutation relations we obtain is that the spectrum of the lightcone Hamiltonian is modified in a nontrivial manner by the $`B`$-field (see (3.65)). These are possible since $`p^+`$ is central in the pp-wave supersymmetry algebra.

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we first present a D-brane configuration that preserves half of the 32 supersymmetries. We show that it is allowed to put a constant $`B`$-field on its worldvolume. Section 3 is devoted to the quantization of the open string ending on this D-brane. In section 3.1, we construct the complete mode expansion of an open string ending on a D-brane with $`B`$-field in the pp-wave background. The zero mode part has a nontrivial dependence on the worldsheet $`\sigma `$-coordinate (see (3.40)) and is more complicated than the case without $`B`$-field. Also we find that the zero mode frequency is affected by a constant background $`B`$-field, but not for the higher oscillation modes. In section 3.2, we review the procedure for determining the commutation relations of the theory. The starting point is the symplectic form (3.47). We explain why it is consistent and use it to derive the basic commutation relations (3.52)–(3.55) for the string modes. As a result of these commutation relations, the boundary commutators of the string coordinates and string canonical momentum are modified, and only at the boundary, as in (3.70)–(3.72). The spectrum of the lightcone Hamiltonian is obtained. As a consequence of these commutation relations, we find that the spectrum of the nonzero modes depend on the mode number $`n`$ in a more complicated manner; we also noted an interesting splitting in the zero mode spectrum, see (3.65). In section 3.3, we carry out the constrained quantization of Dirac and obtain the same result. In section 4, we discuss various scaling limits and discuss their physical meanings. We conclude the paper with further discussions.

## 2 BPS D-brane with $`B`$-field in pp-wave

Consider a flat D-brane in the pp-wave background, with a constant $`B`$-field turned on in its worldvolume. This is a BPS configuration preserving half of the 32 pp-wave supersymmetries. This can be easily seen from the limiting procedure considered in  that relate brane probe solution in $`AdS\times S`$ to brane probe solution in the Penrose-limited pp-wave or Minkowskian background. In this section, we will use the $`\kappa `$-symmetric formulation of D$`p`$-brane (see for example ) to show this explicitly. It will also allow us to see how the D-brane is stuck at the origin from the point of view of the Born-Infeld theory, see (2.23).

Given a D-brane probe, the surviving supersymmetries satisfies the condition

$$(1\mathrm{\Gamma })\xi =0$$
(2.3)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a projector that depends on the details of the brane configuration. The explicit form of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ was obtained, for example, in , where it was shown that the Born-Infeld field strength amounts to a relative rotation of the left and right moving fields. In order to be self contained, we recall that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=e^{a/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(0)}^{}e^{a/2},$$
(2.4)
where $`a`$ is a matrix given below and

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(0)}^{}=\{\begin{array}{cc}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11})^{\frac{p2}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(0)}\hfill & \text{IIA,}\hfill \\ (\sigma _3)^{\frac{p3}{2}}i\sigma _2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(0)}\hfill & \text{IIB,}\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.5)
and

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(0)}=\frac{1}{(p+1)!\sqrt{detG}}ϵ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_{p+1}}_{i_1}X^{M_1}\mathrm{}_{i_{p+1}}X^{M_{p+1}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{M_1\mathrm{}M_{p+1}}^{}.$$
(2.6)
As usual, the matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{M_1\mathrm{}M_{p+1}}^{}`$ is the antisymmetrized product of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{M_k}^{}`$ with the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_M^{}`$ being the 10 dimensional $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-matrices in the coordinate basis defined by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_M^{}:=E_M{}_{}{}^{A}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{A}^{},$$
(2.7)
where the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_A`$ are flat space $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-matrices. The metric $`G_{ij}`$ is the induced worldvolume metric

$$G_{ij}=_iX^M_jX^Ng_{MN}.$$
(2.8)
To define the matrix $`a`$ appearing in (2.4) we need to introduce the modified 2-form field strength $``$ which is related to the Born-Infeld field strength $`F=dA`$ by

$$=F\underset{¯}{B},$$
(2.9)
where $`\underset{¯}{B}`$ is the pullback of the target space NS-NS 2-form potential to the worldvolume. The matrix $`a`$ depends only on the worldvolume Born-Infeld field strength and is given by

$$a=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2}Y_{jk}\gamma ^{jk}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}\hfill & \text{IIA,}\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2}Y_{jk}\sigma _3\gamma ^{jk}\hfill & \text{IIB,}\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.10)
the $`\gamma ^{jk}`$ being worldvolume $`\gamma `$ matrices,

$$\gamma _i=_iX^M\mathrm{\Gamma }_M^{}$$
(2.11)
and $`Y`$ is a function of $``$. The relation in the frame basis of the worldvolume (hatted indices) is

$$Y_{\widehat{j}\widehat{k}}:=\text{tan}^1_{\widehat{j}\widehat{k}}.$$
(2.12)
Specifically, let us consider a D$`p`$-brane spanning the directions $`(+,,i_2,\mathrm{},i_p)`$, where $`X^\pm =(X^0\pm X^9)/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`(i_2,\mathrm{},i_p)(1,\mathrm{},8)`$. Denote the worldvolume coordinates of the D-brane by $`(\tau ,\xi ^k),k=1,\mathrm{},p`$. In the lightcone gauge,

$$X^+(\tau ,\xi )=p^+\tau .$$
(2.13)
We also take the physical gauge

$$X^{}(\tau ,\xi )=\xi ^1,X^{i_k}(\tau ,\xi )=\xi ^k,k=2,\mathrm{},p.$$
(2.14)
The transverse directions $`X^a(\tau ,\xi )`$, then describe the embedding of the D-brane.

We will consider a constant $`B`$-field with nonvanishing components $`B_{ij}`$, $`i,j(1,\mathrm{},8)`$. The pull-back $`B`$-field is the same as the target space components, and therefore we will not distinguish them anymore. As for the pullback metric, we have

$$G_{\mu \nu }=G_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}+_\mu X^a_\nu X^a,$$
(2.15)
where $`G_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}`$ is the metric

$$G^{(0)}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}u^2& p^+& \\ p^+& 0& \\ & & \text{1 l}_{(p1)\times (p1)}\end{array}\right),u^2:=p^{+2}\mathrm{f}^2(\underset{i=2}{\overset{p}{}}\xi ^{i\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+X^{a\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}).$$
(2.16)
Now, it is easy to see that for a flat D-brane described by

$$X^a(\tau ,\xi )=\text{const},$$
(2.17)
we have

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(0)}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{+i_2\mathrm{}i_p}.$$
(2.18)
This is independent of $`B`$ and $`m`$ and the D-brane preserves half supersymmetries. Using the form of the killing spinor given in  and the fact that the brane is stuck at the origin (see (2.23) below), it is easy to check that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(0)}^{}`$ preserve half of the supersymmetry for $`p=3,5,7`$. This agrees with the open string analysis of  111We thank Atish Dabholkar, Jaume Gomis and Shahrokh Parvizi for useful email exchanges.. Branes at angle  can be discussed similarly.

Finally we check that the brane configuration satisfies the equations of motion. In our case, since we are using the physical gauge, the equations of motion are derived from the gauge fixed form of the Dirac-Born-Infeld action, including the WZ-term,

$$I=d^{p+1}\xi \sqrt{\mathrm{det}(G+)}+\underset{¯}{C}:=I_{DBI}+I_{WZ},$$
(2.19)
where $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ is the induced worldvolume metric (2.15) in the physical gauge and $`\underset{¯}{C}`$ is the pullback to the worldvolume of the RR 4-form potential. The inclusion of the WZ term is crucial in checking that the equation of motion is satisfied for brane configurations with nontrivial embeddings . However for the trivial embedding (2.17), the WZ term does not play any role. The equation of motion reads

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^1_\mu \left(\mathrm{\Delta }\{(G+)^1+(G)^1\}^{\mu \nu }_\nu X^a\right)m^2X^a=0,`$ (2.20)
$`_\mu \left(\mathrm{\Delta }\{(G+)^1(G)^1\}^{\mu \nu }\right)=0,`$ (2.21)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }:=\sqrt{det(G+)}.$$
(2.22)
The only constant solution of equation (2.20) is

$$X^a=0.$$
(2.23)
The absence of flat directions is because they are lifted by the potential well created by the mass term. Equation (2.23) implies that

$$u^2=p^{+2}\mathrm{f}^2\underset{i=2}{\overset{p}{}}\xi ^{i\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}.$$
(2.24)
Note that it is independent of neither $`\tau `$ nor $`\xi ^1`$. It is then easy to check that

$$_{ij}=\text{const}$$
(2.25)
is a solution to (2.21). Hence our claim is justified. In the following, we will turn to the open string description for these D-branes. For simplicity, we will take the gauge $`=B`$ where $`A=0`$.

## 3 Noncommutative D-brane with $`B`$-field in pp-wave

The main objective of this paper is to work out the effects of $`B`$-field on the quantization of the open string theory ending on a D-brane in the pp-wave background. We will carry out this analysis in the GS formulation.

### 3.1 Open String Mode Expansion

Recall that for a flat D-brane in Minkowskian spacetime, the open string GS action was obtained from lightcone gauge fixing the covariant action , in which the latter can be obtained by substituting in the superfield background that solves the IIB supergravity constraints. With a constant $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ field turned on, it induces new nonzero components in the superfields $`B_{\mu \alpha }`$ and $`B_{\alpha \beta }`$. However these terms all cancel themselves out in the action and the only effect is the addition of the usual bosonic $`B`$-field coupling to the target space . A coupling to the fermionic spacetime variables would arise only if $`B`$ were not closed. It was also shown that one can use the usual (ie. the one for $`B=0`$) lightcone gauge fixing condition so long as $`B_{0\mu }=B_{9\mu }=0`$ . This is exactly the setting we considered in section 2.

The $`\kappa `$-symmetric formulation of closed string in pp-wave background was analysed in . In the lightcone gauge, the theory is exactly solvable and consists of eight massive bosons and fermions. Turing on the $`B`$-field, and carrying out a similar analysis as in , one finds that the open string has the bosonic action in the lightcone gauge,

$$S=\frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}d^2\sigma [g_{ij}(\eta ^{\alpha \beta }_\alpha X^i_\beta X^j+m^2X^iX^j)+ϵ^{\alpha \beta }_\alpha X^i_\beta X^jB_{ij}],$$
(3.26)
where $`i,j=1,\mathrm{}p`$, and $`B`$ is turned on only in the directions $`2,\mathrm{},p`$. Following , we have introduced the parameter

$$m:=\alpha ^{}p^+\mathrm{f},$$
(3.27)
and we have taken the length of the $`\sigma `$-interval to be $`\pi `$; therefore strings with different lightcone momentum have different $`m`$. We ignored the transverse coordinates in (3.26) since the quantization of them is standard. The fermionic sector will not affect the result and can be considered separately. We have introduced the Euclidean metric $`g_{ij}`$ for the sake of the scaling limits to be considered in the next section. Note that in our normalization, $`B,m`$ are dimensionless. The equation of motion is

$$(_\tau ^2+_\sigma ^2m^2)X^i=0,$$
(3.28)
and the boundary condition is

$$_\sigma X^i+_\tau X^jB_j{}_{}{}^{i}=0$$
(3.29)
at $`\sigma =0,\pi `$. Indices $`i,j`$ are raised and lowered by $`g_{ij}`$. The lightcone Hamiltonian is

$$H=\frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}p^+}_0^\pi 𝑑\sigma \left((_\tau X)^2+(_\sigma X)^2+m^2X^2\right),$$
(3.30)
We are interested in the effects of the constraint (3.29) to the quantization of the theory. The situation is exactly the same as in . The boundary condition (3.29) implies that

$`2\pi \alpha ^{}[P^k(\tau ,0),P^j(\tau ,\sigma ^{})]B_k{}_{}{}^{i}=_\sigma [X^k(\tau ,\sigma ),P^j(\tau ,\sigma ^{})]_{\sigma =0}M_k{}_{}{}^{i},`$ (3.31)
$`2\pi \alpha ^{}[P^k(\tau ,0),X^j(\tau ,\sigma ^{})]B_k{}_{}{}^{i}=_\sigma [X^k(\tau ,\sigma ),X^j(\tau ,\sigma ^{})]_{\sigma =0}M_k{}_{}{}^{i},`$ (3.32)
where $`P^k`$ is the conjugate momentum

$$2\pi \alpha ^{}P^k(\tau ,\sigma )=_\tau X^k+_\sigma X^jB_j{}_{}{}^{k},$$
(3.33)
and

$$M_k{}_{}{}^{i}=\delta _k{}_{}{}^{i}B_k{}_{}{}^{j}B_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{i}.$$
(3.34)
These simple relations show that the standard canonical commutation relations for $`B=0`$  are no longer valid when $`B0`$.

Without loss of generality, we will assume the metric is already in the diagonal form

$$g_{ij}=\lambda \delta _{ij}.$$
(3.35)
In addition we will consider the case in which the $`B`$-field takes the form

$$B_{ij}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& B\\ B& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(3.36)
and focus on $`X^2,X^3`$. We remark that the action (3.26) is $`SO(2)`$ invariant, and so the angular momentum is conserved. The mode expansion takes the form

$$X^i=X_{(0)}^i+X_{(1)}^i,$$
(3.37)
where 222 It is straightforward to extend the two dimensional case to the generic case. Assuming that $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ is invertible, we can always decompose it as $`U^TbU`$ by an orthogonal transformation $`U`$, where $`b`$ is a matrix of diagonal blocks of the form (3.36). Then the zero mode solution is
$$X_{(0)}^i=x_+^j\left(U^T\mathrm{exp}(+(ab^1\tau a\sigma ))U\right)_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{i}+x_{}^j\left(U^T\mathrm{exp}((ab^1\tau a\sigma ))U\right)_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{i},$$
(3.38) where the matrix $`a`$ is a diagonal matrix defined by
$$a^2=\frac{m^2}{1b^2}.$$
(3.39) Note that $`a`$ is well defined by this relation because $`b^2`$ is diagonal with negative entries,

$`X_{(0)}^i=`$ $`(x_0^i\mathrm{cos}\omega _0\tau +2\alpha ^{}p_0^i{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\omega _0\tau }{\omega _0}})\mathrm{cosh}\omega _0\overline{B}\sigma `$ (3.40)
$`+(2\alpha ^{}p_0^j\mathrm{cos}\omega _0\tau +x_0^j\omega _0\mathrm{sin}\omega _0\tau )B_j{}_{}{}^{i}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}\omega _0\overline{B}\sigma }{\omega _0\overline{B}}},`$
is the “zero mode” part, and

$$X_{(1)}^k=\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}\underset{n0}{}e^{i\omega _n\tau }(i\frac{\alpha _n^k}{\omega _n}\mathrm{cos}n\sigma \frac{\alpha _n^j}{n}B_j{}_{}{}^{k}\mathrm{sin}n\sigma ),$$
(3.41)
is the nonzero mode part. The constant $`\overline{B}`$

$$\overline{B}:=B/\lambda ,$$
(3.42)
is the eigenvalue of the matrix $`B_i^j`$; and the frequencies are defined by

$$\omega _0:=\frac{m}{\sqrt{1+\overline{B}^2}}>0,\text{and}\omega _n:=\mathrm{sign}(n)\sqrt{n^2+m^2},n0.$$
(3.43)
A couple of remarks about the “zero modes” are in order. 1. By “zero modes” here, we simply refer to the modes with the lowest frequency. We stress that the zero modes are very different in structure compared to the oscillation modes. One important difference between the zero mode part and the oscillation part is that the zero mode part $`X_{(0)}^i`$ actually satisfies (3.28) and (3.29) for all $`0\sigma \pi `$. This is the same as in the flat case ($`m=0`$) . 2. Note that the zero mode structure is more complicated than the $`B=0`$ case, where $`X_{(0)}^i`$ was simply independent of $`\sigma `$ . 3. In our expansion (3.40), the coefficients $`x_0`$ and $`p_0`$ are identified conveniently such that they have the correct dimensions. It is a simple choice and it is possible to rescale them by dimensionless factors. 4. Finally, we note that naively one may have expected that, since turning on a constant $`B`$-field has no effect on the equation of motion (propagation), the zero mode will have the frequency $`m`$ as in the $`B=0`$ case . However, it is easy to check that when $`B0`$, this frequency does not give rise to any solution that can satisfy both the equation of motion and the boundary condition. The modification of the zero mode frequency by the external $`B`$-field through the boundary condition is an interesting effect. We recall that in the flat case for a neutral string, turning on a B-field does not change the mode frequency. In the case of a charged string , all the frequencies are modified by the background field. Our case here is intermediate, turning on a $`B`$-field only modify the zero mode frequency. This is another difference between the zero modes and the oscillation modes.

The canonical momentum also splits into a sum

$$P^k=P_{(0)}^k+P_{(1)}^k$$
(3.44)
of the the zero mode part

$`2\pi \alpha ^{}P_{(0)}^k=`$ $`(x_0^j\omega _0\mathrm{sin}\omega _0\tau +2\alpha ^{}p_0^j\mathrm{cos}\omega _0\tau )M_j{}_{}{}^{k}\mathrm{cosh}\omega _0\overline{B}\sigma `$ (3.45)
$`+(2\alpha ^{}p_0^j\mathrm{sin}\omega _0\tau +x_0^j\omega _0\mathrm{cos}\omega _0\tau )(Bg^1M)_j{}_{}{}^{k}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}\omega _0\overline{B}\sigma }{\overline{B}}},`$
and the nonzero mode part

$$2\pi \alpha ^{}P_{(1)}^k=\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}\underset{n0}{}e^{i\omega _n\tau }(\alpha _n^jM_j{}_{}{}^{k}\mathrm{cos}n\sigma +i\frac{m^2}{n\omega _n}\alpha _n^jB_j{}_{}{}^{k}\mathrm{sin}n\sigma ).$$
(3.46)
Note that (3.40), (3.41), (3.46) and (3.45) reduce smoothly to the usual flat space expressions in the limit $`m0`$.

### 3.2 Open String Quantization in pp-wave with B-field

To quantize the theory we will follow the procedure adopted in , where interpretations in terms of noncommutative geometry were emphasised. This method is equivalent to the canonical quantization performed in . That paper also gave the first instance demonstrating how noncommutativity of the zero modes can arise in the presence of a background field. Its physical implications had been studied in .

First we need the symplectic form

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=_0^\pi 𝑑\sigma g_{ij}𝐝P^i𝐝X^j.$$
(3.47)
That this is the correct symplectic form of the theory can be justified from an analysis of the constraint structure of the theory. Without going into the details, one can already see this since the constraint (3.29) is imposed only at the boundary. It is clear that the constrained quantization method will give a Dirac bracket which is modified and is possibly different from the original Poisson bracket only at the boundary. (We will present the constrained quantization in the next subsection.) This is a measure zero set and so the symplectic form takes the standard form (3.47).

Of course this doesn’t mean that the commutation relations of the theory are unmodified. This is felt through the modified form of the mode expansion (3.40), (3.41), (3.45)and (3.46). By substituting in the mode expansions (3.37) and (3.44) and evaluate the $`\sigma `$ integral, the symplectic form (3.47) of the theory can be thought of as the symplectic form defined for the string modes. This procedure is consistent since, using (3.28) and (3.29), it is easy to check that (3.47) is independent of $`\tau `$ . As a result, one can take the resulting expression as the symplectic form for the string modes. The commutation relation of the string modes can be then obtained from (3.47) by inverting the symplectic matrix.

Explicitly we obtain the following symplectic form for the string modes

$`2\pi \alpha ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }=`$ $`2\alpha ^{}\stackrel{~}{c}M_{ij}𝐝p_0^i𝐝x_0^j{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0c}{2\overline{B}}}(Mg^1B)_{ij}𝐝x_0^i𝐝x_0^j(2\alpha ^{})^2{\displaystyle \frac{c}{2\omega _0\overline{B}}}(Mg^1B)_{ij}𝐝p_0^i𝐝p_0^j`$ (3.48)
$`+i2\pi \alpha ^{}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{ij}^n}{\omega _n}}𝐝\alpha _n^i𝐝\alpha _n^j,`$
where the “metric” $`M_{ij}^n`$ is defined by

$$M_{ij}^n:=g_{ij}\frac{\omega _n^2}{n^2}(Bg^1B)_{ij}.$$
(3.49)
Note that $`M_{ij}^n=M_{ij}`$ only when $`m=0`$. The constants $`c,\stackrel{~}{c}`$ are defined by

$`c`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{cosh}(2\pi \omega _0\overline{B})1)/(2\omega _0\overline{B})\pi ^2\omega _0\overline{B}+\mathrm{},`$ (3.50)
$`\stackrel{~}{c}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sinh}(2\pi \omega _0\overline{B})/(2\omega _0\overline{B})\pi +\mathrm{}.`$ (3.51)
The $``$ above gives the leading order expansion in the small $`m`$ limit. Following . we have been careful in keeping the metric dependence to facilitate the discussion of scaling limits. This will be done in the next section.

Inverting the symplectic matrix, we obtain the following commutation relations for the zero modes and for the oscillation modes

$`[x_0^i,p_0^j]=i(M^1)^{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \omega _0\overline{B}}{\mathrm{tanh}\pi \omega _0\overline{B}}},`$ (3.52)
$`[x_0^i,x_0^j]=i2\pi \alpha ^{}(g^1BM^1)^{ij},`$ (3.53)
$`[p_0^i,p_0^j]=i{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \omega _0^2}{2\alpha ^{}}}(g^1BM^1)^{ij},`$ (3.54)
$$[\alpha _n^i,\alpha _s^j]=\omega _nM_n^{ij}\delta _{n+s},$$
(3.55)
where

$$M_n^{ij}=(\frac{1}{g+\frac{\omega _n}{n}B}g\frac{1}{g\frac{\omega _n}{n}B})^{ij}$$
(3.56)
is the inverse of $`M_{ij}^n`$ for each fixed $`n`$. It represents a metric that is mode-dependent. This is in contrast with the flat case, where it was found that  the oscillator’s commutation relations are determined by the same open string metric $`M^{ij}`$ as the zero modes. Here we find that each level of the oscillators see a different metric. A consequency of this is the more complicated $`n`$-dependence in the spectrum of the Hamiltonian (3.65). It may be interesting to investigate to what extent one can think of $`M_n^{ij}`$ as a mode-dependent open-string metric. Note that in the form (3.35) of the metric,

$$M_n^{ij}=g^{ij}(1+\frac{\omega _n^2}{n^2}\overline{B}^2)^1$$
(3.57)
is diagonal and is a monotonic increasing function of $`n`$ which is bounded above by $`M^{ij}`$. Note also that by turning on the mass parameter $`m`$, $`p_0^i`$ also become noncommuting themselves; and the phase space of $`x_0,p_0`$ becomes fully noncommuting. The noncommutative parameters depends on the background of the pp-wave, and on the lightcone momentum $`p^+`$.

In the above, we have considered a single string with a single $`p^+`$. If one wants to perform calculations with many string states, then it will be useful to introduce a basis of oscillators whose commutation relations are independent of $`p^+`$. For the nonzero modes, we can introduce the following basis of oscillators

$$a_n^i:=\sqrt{\frac{1+\frac{\omega _n^2}{n^2}\overline{B}^2}{\omega _n/\lambda }}\alpha _n^i,\overline{a}_n^i:=\sqrt{\frac{1+\frac{\omega _n^2}{n^2}\overline{B}^2}{\omega _n/\lambda }}\alpha _n^i,n>0.$$
(3.58)
They obey the relations

$$[\overline{a}_n^i,a_s^j]=\delta ^{ij}\delta _{ns},[a_n^i,a_s^j]=0.$$
(3.59)
Note the $`B`$-dependence in the rescaling. For the zero mode, one may define

$$a_0^i:=\frac{w}{2}(x_0^ii\frac{2\alpha ^{}p_0^i}{\omega _0}),\overline{a}_0^i:=(a_0^i)^{^{}},\text{with}w:=\sqrt{\frac{\lambda m^2}{\alpha ^{}\omega _0}\frac{\mathrm{tanh}\pi \overline{B}\omega _0}{\pi \overline{B}\omega _0}},$$
(3.60)
in terms of which the commutation relations (3.52)–(3.54) take the simple form of a deformed oscillator algebra

$$[\overline{a}_0^i,a_0^j]=\delta ^{ij}+iϵ^{ij}\mathrm{tanh}\pi \overline{B}\omega _0,[a_0^i,a_0^j]=0,$$
(3.61)
which is $`SO(2)`$ invariant. Or one may introduce

$$a_\pm :=\frac{a_0^1\pm ia_0^2}{\sqrt{2(1\mathrm{tanh}\pi \overline{B}\omega _0})},\overline{a}_\pm :=(a_\pm )^{},$$
(3.62)
which obey the $`U(1)`$ invariant commutation relations

$$[\overline{a}_A,a_B]=\delta _{AB},[a_A,a_B]=0,A,B=+,.$$
(3.63)
In terms of them, the zero mode part of the string coordinates can be written as, for example,

$$X_{(0)}^i=\frac{e^{i\omega _0\tau }}{w}(a_0^i\mathrm{cosh}\omega _0\overline{B}\sigma ia_0^jB_j{}_{}{}^{i}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}\omega \overline{B}\sigma }{\overline{B}})+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}..$$
(3.64)
The lightcone Hamiltonian (3.30) takes the diagonal form

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0\mathrm{cosh}^2\pi \overline{B}\omega _0}{p^+}}\left((1\mathrm{tanh}\pi \overline{B}\omega _0)a_+\overline{a}_++(1+\mathrm{tanh}\pi \overline{B}\omega _0)a_{}\overline{a}_{}+1\right)`$ (3.65)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^+}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\overline{B}^2}{1+\frac{\omega _n^2}{n^2}\overline{B}^2}}\omega _na_n^i\overline{a}_n^i,`$
where we have written the Hamiltonian in a normal ordered form, and have dropped the infinite additive constant arising from the nonzero modes. This will be cancelled with the fermionic oscillators . The factor 1 in (3.65) came from the normal ordering of the zero mode oscillator $`a_\pm `$ and remember that we are considering two string coordinates $`X^{2,3}`$.

The Fock vacuum of the theory is defined by

$$\overline{a}_\pm |0=0,\overline{a}_n^i|0=0,n>0.$$
(3.66)
It is $`SO(2)`$ invariant. In choosing the definition of the vacuum, we have been guided by the requirement of $`SO(2)`$ invariance of the theory. Turning on a $`B`$-field in the 2–3 directions preserve this symmetry. Note that the spectrum for the nonzero modes depend on $`n`$ in a more complicated way due to $`B0`$. Note also that the degeneracy of the states $`a_\pm |0`$ is lifted when $`B0`$. We expect that this splitting of the string spectrum to have interesting physical consequences.

Finally we derive the intrinsic commutation relations of the theory in terms of $`X^i`$ and $`P^i`$. Using the relations above, one can easily obtain

$$[X^i(\tau ,\sigma ),X^j(\tau ,\sigma ^{})]=i2\pi \alpha ^{}B^{ij}f(\sigma +\sigma ^{}),$$
(3.67)
where the function $`f(\sigma )`$ is defined on $`\sigma [0,2\pi ]`$ as

$$f(\sigma ):=\frac{1}{c}[c\mathrm{cosh}(\omega _0\overline{B}\sigma )\stackrel{~}{c}\mathrm{sinh}(\omega _0\overline{B}\sigma )]\frac{2}{\pi }\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n}(1+\frac{\omega _0^2\overline{B}^2}{n^2})^1\mathrm{sin}n\sigma .$$
(3.68)
It is easy to show that

$$f(\sigma )=(1+\overline{B}^2)^1\times \{\begin{array}{cc}+1,& \sigma =0,\hfill \\ 1,& \sigma =2\pi ,\hfill \\ 0,& 0<\sigma <2\pi .\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.69)
Thus the commutation relation of $`X`$ is

$$[X^i(\tau ,\sigma ),X^j(\tau ,\sigma ^{})]=i2\pi \alpha ^{}(g^1BM^1)^{ij}\times \{\begin{array}{cc}1,& \sigma =\sigma ^{}=0,\hfill \\ 1,& \sigma =\sigma ^{}=\pi ,\hfill \\ 0,& \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.70)
and is modified only at the endpoints of the open string. The commutator for $`P`$ themselves can be similarly computed and we obtain

$$[P^i(\tau ,\sigma ),P^j(\tau ,\sigma ^{})]=i\frac{m^2}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}(1+\overline{B}^2)B^{ij}f(\sigma +\sigma ^{}).$$

Thus both commutators are given in terms of the same function $`f`$. As a result, we find

$$[P^i(\tau ,\sigma ),P^j(\tau ,\sigma ^{})]=i\frac{m^2}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}B^{ij}\times \{\begin{array}{cc}+1,& \sigma =\sigma ^{}=0,\hfill \\ 1,& \sigma =\sigma ^{}=\pi ,\hfill \\ 0,& \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.71)
It is intriguing that the commutation relations for the endpoint momentum are nontrivial. Note also it dependent on the parameter $`m=\alpha ^{}p^+\mathrm{f}`$ in a nontrivial way. This is a new feature of the pp-wave background: the noncommutative space felt by a string depends on its light-cone momentum. Finally we obtain

$$[X^i(\tau ,\sigma ),P^j(\tau ,\sigma ^{})]=i\frac{g^{ij}}{\pi }(1+\underset{n0}{}\mathrm{cos}n\sigma \mathrm{cos}n\sigma ^{}).$$
(3.72)
Note that (3.70) and (3.72) take exactly the same form as in the flat case  and is unmodified by $`m`$. Also note that, unlike the relations for the zero modes, the relations (3.70)–(3.72) are intrinsic and is independent of how the zero modes are identified, nor how the vacuum is chosen.

### 3.3 Constrained Quantization

In this subsection, we present the construction of the Dirac bracket following the procedure in . To start with, the standard Poisson bracket is

$`(X^i(\sigma ),P_j(\sigma ^{}))=\delta _j^i\delta (\sigma ,\sigma ^{}),(P_i(\sigma ),P_j(\sigma ^{}))=0,(X^i(\sigma ),X^j(\sigma ^{}))=0.`$ (3.73)
As first noted in , the boundary condition can be treated as a constraint on the phase space

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^i(0)=\mathrm{\Phi }^i(\pi )=0,$$
(3.74)
where we have introduced

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^i(\sigma ):=2\pi \alpha ^{}P^jB_j{}_{}{}^{i}+_\sigma X^jM_j{}_{}{}^{i}.$$
(3.75)
Using the lightcone Hamiltonian (3.30) one determines the complete set of second class constraints

$$_\sigma ^{2\mathrm{n}}\mathrm{\Phi }^i(\sigma )=0,_\sigma ^{2\mathrm{n}}\mathrm{\Psi }^i(\sigma )=0,\mathrm{n}=0,1,\mathrm{},$$
(3.76)
where

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^i(\sigma ):=_\sigma P^i\frac{m^2}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}X^jB_j{}_{}{}^{i}.$$
(3.77)
We will denote them by $`\varphi ^{(\alpha k\mathrm{n})}`$, $`\alpha =1,2`$; $`k=2,\mathrm{},p`$; $`\mathrm{n}=0,1,\mathrm{}`$,

$$\varphi ^{(1k\mathrm{n})}=_\sigma ^{2\mathrm{n}}\mathrm{\Phi }^k,\varphi ^{(2k\mathrm{n})}=_\sigma ^{2\mathrm{n}}\mathrm{\Psi }^k.$$
(3.78)
These constraints are consistent with the explicit mode expansion of the fields $`X^i`$ and $`P^i`$ given above.

The Poisson matrix $`C^{(\alpha k\mathrm{n})(\beta l\mathrm{m})}`$ of the constraints can be computed easily. The basic ones are the $`C^{(\alpha k0)(\beta l0)}`$ ’s :

$`(\mathrm{\Phi }^k(\sigma ),\mathrm{\Phi }^l(\sigma ^{}))`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi \alpha ^{}(BM)^{kl}[_\sigma \delta (\sigma ,\sigma ^{})+_\sigma ^{}\delta (\sigma ^{},\sigma )],`$ (3.79)
$`(\mathrm{\Phi }^k(\sigma ),\mathrm{\Psi }^l(\sigma ^{}))`$ $`=`$ $`M^{kl}_\sigma _\sigma ^{}\delta (\sigma ,\sigma ^{})+m^2(B^2)^{kl}\delta (\sigma ,\sigma ^{}),`$ (3.80)
$`(\mathrm{\Psi }^k(\sigma ),\mathrm{\Psi }^l(\sigma ^{}))`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}B^{kl}[_\sigma \delta (\sigma ,\sigma ^{})+_\sigma ^{}\delta (\sigma ^{},\sigma )]`$ (3.81)
and in general

$$C^{(\alpha k\mathrm{n})(\beta l\mathrm{m})}(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})=(\varphi ^{(\alpha k\mathrm{n})}(\sigma ),\varphi ^{(\beta l\mathrm{m})}(\sigma ^{}))=_\sigma ^{2\mathrm{n}}_\sigma ^{}^{2\mathrm{m}}C^{(\alpha k0)(\beta l0)}(\sigma ,\sigma ^{}).$$
(3.82)
The Dirac bracket is given by

$`(A(\sigma ),B(\sigma ^{}))^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(A(\sigma ),B(\sigma ^{}))`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma ^{^{\prime \prime }}\sigma ^{^{\prime \prime \prime }}}{}}(A(\sigma ),\varphi ^{(\alpha k\mathrm{n})}(\sigma ^{^{\prime \prime }}))C_{(\alpha k\mathrm{n})(\beta l\mathrm{m})}(\sigma ^{^{\prime \prime }},\sigma ^{^{\prime \prime \prime }})(\varphi ^{(\beta l\mathrm{m})}(\sigma ^{^{\prime \prime \prime }}),B(\sigma ^{})),`$
where the sum $`\sigma ^{\prime \prime },\sigma ^{\prime \prime \prime }`$ is over the endpoints $`0,\pi `$. As in , the Dirac bracket can be computed similarly without knowing the explicit form of the inverse matrix $`C_{(\alpha k\mathrm{n})(\beta l\mathrm{m})}`$. Only its defining properties are needed. We find the results (3.70)–(3.72). In particular we note that the $`\sigma ,\sigma ^{}`$ dependent part of the right hand side of (3.79) and (3.81) are identical and this accounts for the fact that the commutators (3.70) and (3.71) are both given by the same function $`f(\sigma +\sigma ^{})`$.

## 4 Scaling Limits

In this section, we will consider scaling limits of $`\alpha ^{},B,m`$ such that the commutation relations (3.52)–(3.54) remain nontrivial. In these limits the noncommutative algebra should play a role in the D-brane physics. We remark that one can equivalently perform the limits on (3.63) for the variables $`a_0^i`$’s. Here we choose to consider the variables $`x_0^i,p_0^i`$ since we would like to explore and develop possible geometrical interpretations.

### 4.1 Small $`B`$-Field Limit

The DBI action is exact to all orders in $`\alpha ^{}`$  for the $`U(1)`$ gauge field $``$. Here we prefer to think of it as a consequence of supersymmetry (see, for example ). For small $`B`$-field, it should be possible to check that the DBI action on pp-wave background is equivalent to the DBI action on the noncommutative space without $`B`$-field for slowly varying fields, in a similar way as it was checked for the flat background . This match may provide some hint for the appropriate description of the noncommutative space. A particularly interesting limit is to go to the infinite momentum frame and take a small $`B`$-field simultaneously:

$$Bϵ^2,m1/ϵ,g_{ij},\alpha ^{}\text{ fixed}.$$
(4.84)
The commutation relations (3.52)–(3.54) become

$`[x_0^i,p_0^j]`$ $`=`$ $`ig^{ij},`$ (4.85)
$`[x_0^i,x_0^j]`$ $`=`$ $`i2\pi \alpha ^{}B^{ij},`$ (4.86)
$`[p_0^i,p_0^j]`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{\pi m^2}{2\alpha ^{}}}B^{ij}.`$ (4.87)
In this limit the coordinates noncommutativity can be treated perturbatively, but the description of the momentum noncommutativity has to be exact. This limit is interesting since the $`p^+`$ dependence has essentially disappeared because one can treat all the strings to have the same lightcone momentum in the leading order approximation. It would be interesting to study the corresponding large $`N`$ matrix model.

### 4.2 Large $`B`$-Field Limit: Deformed Phase Space

When $`m=0`$, all the excited modes can be ignored in the limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$. And we only need to consider the zero modes for the low energy effective theory. Moreover, if we also take the large $`B`$-field limit  of Seiberg and Witten :

$$\alpha ^{}ϵ^{1/2},g_{ij}ϵ,\overline{B}ϵ^{1/2},$$
(4.88)
then a noncommutative theory is obtained with $`M`$ (3.34) and the noncommutativity parameter

$$\theta ^{ij}:=2\pi \alpha ^{}(g^1BM^1)^{ij}=\frac{2\pi b^{ij}}{b^2}$$
(4.89)
fixed and finite in the limit. To facilitate the comparison, our $`B_{ij}`$ is related to the dimensionful $`b_{ij}`$ of Seiberg-Witten  by $`B_{ij}=\alpha ^{}b_{ij}`$. Hence $`\overline{B}=\alpha ^{}b/\lambda ϵ^{1/2}`$ as $`b`$ is fixed.

However, for $`m0`$, the zero mode frequency $`\omega _0`$ is of the same order of magnitude as the oscillator modes, and the ratio $`\omega _0/\omega _1`$ is finite in the limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$. Therefore generally we cannot ignore the higher frequency modes unless we take another suitable limit at the same time. It is easy to see that for fixed $`m`$, the Seiberg-Witten limit (4.88) does the job. It sends $`\omega _0ϵ^{1/2}`$ while keeping $`\omega _{n0}`$ fixed. The zero modes commutation relations take the form

$`[x_0^i,p_0^j]=ih^{ij},`$ (4.90)
$`[x_0^i,x_0^j]=i\theta ^{ij},`$ (4.91)
$`[p_0^i,p_0^j]=i\kappa ^{ij}.`$ (4.92)
where $`\theta ^{ij}`$ is given by (4.89) and

$$h^{ij}:=\frac{\lambda }{\alpha ^2b^2}\frac{\pi m}{\mathrm{tanh}\pi m}\delta ^{ij},\kappa ^{ij}:=\frac{\lambda ^2m^2}{4\alpha ^4b^2}\theta ^{ij}$$
(4.93)
are fixed and finite in the limit. Note that $`\theta `$ has dimension (length)2 and $`\kappa `$ has dimension (length)-2. Note also that the reason that $`\kappa \theta `$ is because here we are dealing with 2-dimensions only. This will not be the case if we consider a higher rank $`B`$-field.

The commutation relations (4.90)–(4.92) are intriguing. They represent a phase space with a fully noncommutative structure. If $`m`$ is zero, we go back to the usual case of a theory defined on a noncommutative manifold. For $`m0`$, a deformed phase space emerges with the noncommutativity parameters $`\theta ^{ij}`$ and $`\kappa ^{ij}`$. Moreover these parameters depends on the pp-wave background and the string momentum. It will be very interesting to understand the implications of this.

As a simpler question, one can momentarily forget about the string embedding and consider simply the physics of the noncommutative phase space by itself. Since the phase space is fully noncommutative in terms of these variables $`x_0,p_0`$, the usual formulation of quantum field theory using a momentum representation will have to be examined. We will call a phase space which satisfies the relations (4.90)–(4.92) (not necessarily with $`\kappa \theta `$) a deformed phase space. It will be very interesting to try to construct a field theory which represents the structure of this deformed phase space.

## 5 Discussions

In this paper, we presented the quantization of the open string ending on a D-brane in pp-wave background with a constant $`B`$-field. We found that, due to the combined effects of the $`B`$-field and the mass parameter, the noncommutative structure of the theory takes on a new form. Compared with the case of a noncommutative D-brane in a flat background, the novelty of the noncommutative algebra we obtained in this paper is the noncommutativity of the linear momentum: (3.71) at the level of the string coordinates, and (3.54) at the level of the zero modes. And moreover the boundary commutation relations depend on the lightcone momentum $`p^+`$ of the string. In fact, the momentum is also noncommutative for charged open strings, and similarly, for open strings with their endpoints ending on different D-branes with different background fields $``$. Since no state can be a simultaneous eigenstate for all components of the momentum, it is unclear whether one can use the usual Fourier analysis to define the $``$-product as before. (See  for a proposal for the case of open strings ending on D-branes with different backgrounds.) Furthermore, in all of these cases, the linear momentum is not a conserved quantity. Rather, the angular momentum is conserved. It would be very interesting if this leads to a new class of noncommutative field theories and to investigate their properties.

As in the neutral case, the novelty of the noncommutativity resides in the zero modes sector. In the neutral string case, the effect of noncommutativity of the zero modes in the operator formalism was noticed in . This led directly to the construction of the general multiloop amplitudes for a noncommutative open string using the Reggeon formalism . In the charged string case, the noncommutativity of the zero modes played an important role in the determination of the charged string spectrum  and the partition function . Moreover the charged string propagator has been constructed  which utilized essentially the noncommutativity of the zero modes. Aspects in the understanding of the charged string interaction were recently made in . In our present case, we have determined some immediate physical effects of the commutation relations we obtained in this paper. In terms of the oscillator algebra, (3.59), (3.61) or (3.63), it implies a splitting in the zero mode spectrum. It also implies a more complicated mode number dependence of the nonzero mode spectrum. Written in terms of the phase space variables, the zero modes noncommutativity takes the form (3.52)–(3.54) generically depending on the lightcone momentum of the string and is thus, in some sense, probe dependent. This is an interesting phenomena. A probe dependent phase space may sound strange. However if geometry can be probe dependent (see for example  for an introduction to various aspects of quantum geometry), it may not be unnatural to expect an extension to that of a probe dependent phase space. This is a fundamental problem. We have not understood its significance. However it is an intriguing possibility. Although our results were derived in a background without gravity, it is conceivable that quantum gravity at the Planck scale may also involve a similar problem, and therefore lessons that can be drawn from this construction should be helpful.

Naively, the commutation relations of the deformed phase space lead to the phase space uncertainty relations

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x^i\mathrm{\Delta }p^j|h^{ij}|,\mathrm{\Delta }x^i\mathrm{\Delta }x^j|\theta ^{ij}|,\mathrm{\Delta }p^i\mathrm{\Delta }p^j|\kappa ^{ij}|.$$
(5.94)
Along the lines of , this might be used to generalize the spacetime uncertainty relations of Yoneya (see  for a review and further references). It would be interesting to see how string dualities may put constraints (e.g. string coupling dependence ) on the forms of these phase space uncertainty relations. We remark that (5.94) does not fall into the classification of quantum spacetime of . It would be interesting to investigate what kinds of assumptions on the quantum phase space could lead to the above uncertainty relations.

Due to the $`p^+`$-dependence in some of our commutation relations, it is not clear whether one can apply the Mandelstam lightcone formalism. It is important to understand this issue.

Assuming we can overcome the problem discussed above and have gained sufficient control over string scattering in the GS formulation, it will also be very interesting to understand the results obtained in this paper, particularly the momentum noncommutativity, in the approach of Schomerus . This will be useful for the understanding of the properties of the D-brane low energy theory.

###### Acknowledgments.

CSC thanks Simon Ross for helpful discussions and Rodolfo Russo for useful comments. The work of CSC was supported in part by the Nuffield Foundation, Grant Number NUF-NAL/00445/G. The work of PMH is supported in part by the National Science Council, the Center for Theoretical Physics at National Taiwan University, the National Center for Theoretical Sciences, and the CosPA project of the Ministry of Education, Taiwan, R.O.C.