format: text

text:
# The Landau-Zener Model with Decoherence: The case S=1/2

## 1 Introduction

This paper concerns the dynamics of a driven two-level system with decoherence and dissipation. Such a simple quantum-mechanical problem has been studied in various contexts, as, e.g., nuclear and atomic physics. What follows is predominantly motivated by molecular magnets and quantum information, as long as these topics suggest new perspectives to the old problem.

The perspective of a comprehensive theory of molecular magnets stimulated a large amount of work. Rather than giving an extensive review, we merely quote few topics in this area. A 1/2 spin (the central spin) has been introduced in modeling the macroscopic spin tunneling (for a short review see, e.g., Ref.); dissipative spin reversal, incoherent Zener tunneling, decoherence were also considered .

Work more directly related to ours can be found in Refs. . In classifying the behaviors of our system, we find effects such as single spin dynamical magnetization and hysteresis; the meaning of these terms will be made clear in the sequel.

In the presence of an oscillating external field, the evolution is characterized by a sequence of level-crossings, where the Landau-Zener (L-Z) model  applies, separated by intervals of “normal” evolution.

We classify the dynamics from the behavior in the L-Z regime and in the “normal” regime. In order to do that, we first solve the Landau-Zener problem in the master equation for the density matrix. This is done both in the unitary and in the irreversible case.

Our starting point is Kraus’s  representation theorem, for the density matrix of a two-level system: a short reminder of the theory is given in Sections 2,3; for the sake of completeness, in Appendix I we recall the conditions for the complete positivity of the evolution .

In Section 4 we discuss the unitary case by means of qualitative methods. We examine high frequency fields as well as quasistatic fields. We show that a “magnetized” spin can be sustained, in the direction of a zero-average oscillating bias.

The non-unitary case, where dissipation and decoherence are taken into account, is discussed in Section 5. We show that the L-Z problem can be solved in the irreversible case; the solution is explicit for two-level systems.

We find the lowest order (in the $`1/t`$ expansion) renormalizations of the dissipation and decoherence parameters: the non-unitary processes do not modify the scattering properties of the solution at the level crossings. After analyzing the single-spin “magnetization” with decoherence, we take into account the relaxation from the upper to the lower level. In section 6 we show that an oscillating external field gives rise to hysteretic behavior.

## 2  Master equation for the two-level system

We start with the following master equation, for the density matrix of a two-level system:

$$\dot{\rho }=\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}[H,\rho (t)]+\frac{1}{2}\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{3}{}}A_{ij}([\sigma _i,\rho (t)\sigma _j^{}]+[\sigma _i\rho (t),\sigma _j^{}])$$
(1)
where $`H`$ is associated with reversible dynamics, the matrix $`𝐀`$ is Hermitean and the $`\sigma _i`$’s are the Pauli matrices.

The Hamiltonian is parametrized by 3 real parameters:

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\{\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _1+\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\sigma _2+\omega _0\sigma _3\}$$
(2)
and further 9 real parameters label the $`3\times 3`$ hermitean matrix $`A_{ij}`$.

Notice that this is consistent with the Kraus representation , where the time evolution of a two-level system is characterized by 12 real parameters.

As it is well known, the coefficients of $`𝐀`$ are the correlation functions of the macrosystem coupled with the spin.

We then write Eq. 1 in the standard representation:

$$\rho (t)=\frac{1}{2}\left[\begin{array}{cc}1+Z& XiY\\ X+iY& 1Z\end{array}\right]𝐯=\left[\begin{array}{c}X\\ Y\\ Z\end{array}\right]$$
(3)
we have:

$$\dot{𝐯}(t)=M𝐯(t)+𝐂$$
(4)
The unitary contribution in M has the form:

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}\dot{X}\\ \dot{Y}\\ \dot{Z}\end{array}\right]_H=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0& \omega _0& \mathrm{\Delta }^{}\\ \omega _0& 0& \mathrm{\Delta }\\ \mathrm{\Delta }^{}& \mathrm{\Delta }& 0\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}X\\ Y\\ Z\end{array}\right]$$
(5)
and the decoherence and dissipation processes give:

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}\dot{X}\\ \dot{Y}\\ \dot{Z}\end{array}\right]_D=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}(A_{22}+A_{33})& (A_{12}+A_{21})& (A_{13}+A_{31})\\ (A_{12}+A_{21})& 2(A_{33}+A_{11})& (A_{23}+A_{32})\\ (A_{13}+A_{31})& (A_{23}+A_{32})& 2(A_{11}+A_{22})\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}X\\ Y\\ Z\end{array}\right]+\left[\begin{array}{c}2i(A_{23}A_{32})\\ 2i(A_{31}A_{13})\\ 2i(A_{12}A_{21})\end{array}\right]$$

or:

$$\dot{𝐯}_D=D𝐯+𝐂$$

In Eq. 4, the explicit form of M is made more readable by letting:

$$\gamma _1=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}(A_{22}+A_{33})\gamma _2=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}(A_{33}+A_{11})\gamma _3=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}(A_{11}+A_{22})$$

$$\alpha =(A_{12}+A_{21})\beta =(A_{13}+A_{31})\gamma =(A_{23}+A_{32})$$

$$C_1=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}i(A_{23}A_{32})C_2=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}i(A_{31}A_{13})C_3=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}i(A_{12}A_{21})$$

so that:

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}\dot{X}\\ \dot{Y}\\ \dot{Z}\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}\gamma _1& \alpha \omega _0& \beta +\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\\ \alpha +\omega _0& \gamma _2& \gamma \mathrm{\Delta }\\ \beta \mathrm{\Delta }^{}& \gamma +\mathrm{\Delta }& \gamma _3\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}X\\ Y\\ Z\end{array}\right]+\left[\begin{array}{c}C_1\\ C_2\\ C_3\end{array}\right]$$
(6)
## 3 Geometrical interpretation of the 12 parameters

The phase space of the system is a Poincaré surface, undergoing elementary instantaneous transformations, according with $`M`$ and $`𝐂`$.

More specifically, while the antisymmetric part determines rotations, the symmetric part gives dilatations along 3 principal axes. The inhomogeneous term translates the surface.

The connection with Kraus’s evolution of the density matrix over a finite time interval is readily verified in the case of constant coefficients; in such a case, by explicit time integration, one gets the affine  map:

$$\rho ^{}=\underset{i}{}𝒜_i\rho 𝒜_i^{}\underset{i}{}𝒜_i^{}𝒜_i=\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}1}$$
(7)
which again depends on 12 parameters.

In our problem problem the hamiltonian is time-dependent: the Poincaré surface still undergoes an affine transformation under a finite time evolution, but the operators $`𝒜_i`$ are fairly complicate functions of $`M(t)`$ and $`C_i(t)`$.

We start by assuming a time-independent matrix $`𝐀`$ in eq. 1. The eigenvectors of $`D`$ identify the dilatation axes of the Poincaré surface. The choice of representation for the hamiltonian part, given by $`M`$, fixes a second, time-dependent frame.

Everything greatly simplifies if the two frames coincide, i.e. if $`D`$ is diagonal:

$$\alpha =\beta =\gamma =\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}$$

The parameters are then reduced from 12 to 9: 3 of them come from the hamiltonian, 3 from decoherence and dissipation, $`(\gamma _1,\gamma _2,\gamma _3)`$, and the last 3 from the inhomogeneous terms $`C_i`$.

E.g., in the case of an isotropic thermal bath with average phonon number $`\overline{n}`$ one has :

$$\gamma _1=\gamma _2=\gamma (\overline{n}+\frac{1}{2})\gamma _3=\gamma (2\overline{n}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})$$

$$C_1=C_2=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}C_3=\gamma $$

## 4 Unitary evolution

In this section we illustrate the dynamics in the unitary case. The external field is taken, without loss of generality, in the x-z plane: this implies $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}=0`$. We consider an oscillating z-component: $`B_z=\omega _0(t)`$, and a constant x-component: $`B_x=\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

The evolution can be depicted as a sequence of L-Z crossings and “normal” regimes.

We characterize the “normal” regime with the condition $`|\omega _0(t)|\mathrm{\Delta }`$: it is dominated by rotations in the plane $`X,Y`$, as one can verify by inspection of eq. 5.

One must not expect that the representative on the Poincaré surface retraces its path backwards in coincidence with the external field: in fact the solution is the time-ordered exponential of an operator. This is particularly true when $`\omega _0(t)`$ is of the order of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. On the other hand, as long as the magnetic field $`\{\mathrm{\Delta },\omega _0(t)\}`$ runs over a line in the plane $`\{B_x,B_z\}`$, no Berry phase is to be expected.

We take, as an initial condition, the “fully magnetized” configuration $`Z=\pm 1`$. We have then:

$$\dot{X}=\omega _0Y\dot{Y}=\omega _0X\mathrm{\Delta }Z\dot{Z}=\mathrm{\Delta }Y$$
(8)
$$\omega _0=B_0cos(\mathrm{\Omega }_0t)$$

where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ is the bias frequency.

The Schrödinger equation corresponding to system 8 has the form:

$`i\dot{a}_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\omega _0a_1+\mathrm{\Delta }a_2)`$ (9)
$`i\dot{a}_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\omega _0a_2+\mathrm{\Delta }a_1)`$
where $`a_i,(i=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2})`$ are the spinor amplitudes.

In the atomic interpretation of the two-level system, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the interlevel transition amplitude and $`\omega _0`$ the level spacing.

In the Landau-Zener (L-Z) regime, i.e. close to the level crossing, assumed at $`t=0`$, one has: $`\omega _0=\mathrm{\Omega }t=B_0\mathrm{\Omega }_0t`$. The asymptotics of the solution, when $`\omega _0`$ is linear in $`t`$, is a textbook topic; it can be readily obtained by WKB methods. Let us write the equation for the amplitude $`a_2(t)`$, in the form:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dt^2}}a_2(t)`$ $`=`$ $`W^2(t)a_2(t)`$ (10)
$`W(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }t}{2}}\sqrt{1+({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{\Omega }t}})^2{\displaystyle \frac{2i}{t^2\mathrm{\Omega }}}}`$
From the large time behavior of equation 10, we get the semiclassical momentum

$$p(t)=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }t}{2}+\frac{\nu }{t}\nu =\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{4\mathrm{\Omega }}$$

It is natural to choose the following scattering states: $`exp\{\pm i\mathrm{\Omega }t^2/4\}(t)^{\pm i\nu }`$.
The scattering matrix $`S`$ is obtained from the Weber functions, who solve Eq. 10 (see, e.g., , and references therein). The procedure is straightforward once one realizes that eq. 10 is the Schrödinger equation for an inverted harmonic oscillator in $`D=1`$.

The $`S`$ matrix identifies a rotation. The branching properties of the solution, characterized by the single parameter $`\nu `$, uniquely determine $`S`$ and the rotation. Since $`\nu `$ is a constant in our system, each crossing produces an identical rotation.

Let us label $`S`$ with $`\theta ,\varphi `$:

$`S_{1,1}`$ $`=`$ $`cos(\theta )=exp\{\pi \nu \}`$
$`S_{1,2}`$ $`=`$ $`isin(\theta )exp\{i\varphi \}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\nu }}}exp\{(\pi \nu )/2(i\pi )/4\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(i\nu )}}`$
$`S_{2,1}`$ $`=`$ $`isin(\theta )exp\{i\varphi \}`$
$`S_{2,2}`$ $`=`$ $`S_{1,1}`$
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)`$ is the Gamma function. Clearly $`\theta `$ acts on the population $`Z`$, and $`\varphi `$ on the coherences $`X,Y`$.

One finds, for the ratio of “in” and “out” populations, $`(T=Z(+\mathrm{})/Z(\mathrm{}))`$: $`T=T(\nu )=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}exp\{2\pi \nu \}1`$.

So far, we discussed the Schrödinger equation. Here we solve the corresponding master equation problem. Notice that, since in going from the spin variables $`a_{1,2}`$ to the vector variables $`v_i`$ of the density matrix: $`v_i=a_l^{}\sigma _i^{l,k}a_k(i=1,2,3),(l,k=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},2)`$, one performs a nonlinear transformation, the new problem is not a straightforward translation of the old one.

Rather than satisfying a second-order order equation as in Eq. 10, each vector component satisfies a third-order equation, so that the connection with the Schrödinger equation is lost.

In spite of that, in the representation of frequencies $`\omega `$, the population $`\stackrel{~}{Z}(\omega )`$ satisfies a Schrödinger equation for an (inverted) harmonic oscillator in D=2, with a centrifugal term corresponding to an “angular momentum” $`m=\pm 1`$.

One can develop an $`S`$ matrix formalism in this representation, and extract the L-Z rotation from the branching properties of the solution at $`\omega =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$: indeed at the level crossing the frequency of the motion inverts its sign. It should be further pointed out that, as long as $`Z`$ is quadratic in the spinor amplitudes, its branching behavior is accordingly modified with respect to the spinor case. In Appendix II we give the main steps of the solution.

Before going to numerical results, let us summarize the qualitative features of the motion:
a) in the “normal” regime the representative undergoes uniaxial rotations (precession with time-dependent frequency having an average value of $`\pm 2B_0/\pi `$); b) in the L-Z regime a discrete rotation, involving the population as well as the coherences, occurs; c) in the next “normal” regime the bias $`\omega _0(t)`$ has opposite sign with respect to regime (a), so that the sign of precession is inverted in the L-Z region.

Let us consider the following 3 situations: $`T1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},1`$.

In the first case we have $`(\nu 1)`$, so that, after crossing, an initially “magnetized” state is preserved, apart from a small correction; in the second case, where the transition probability equals $`1/2`$, it is turned into a “fully unmagnetized” state; in the third case $`(\nu 1)`$, magnetization reversal occurs.

Fig. 1 is the three-dimensional plot of the representative $`𝐯`$. The interlevel coupling $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is of the order of the frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$.

The L-Z crossings can be found in the regions where the trajectory inverts its path. Furthermore, at the crossings the vector $`𝐯`$ undergoes a discrete rotation $`\{\theta ,\varphi \}`$. The vertical angle $`\theta `$ is determined by the transition probability between the two levels, which goes as $`exp\{2\pi \nu \}`$: here, where we started with $`Z=1`$, one can see that $`|Z|`$ is reduced accordingly at each crossing.

In Fig. 2, $`Z(t)`$ is plotted over 10 cycles of the external field. The fast oscillations correspond to the “normal” regime, where $`Z`$ is on average constant; the “normal” regimes are separated by kinks, produced by the crossings.

Here we have $`\theta \pi /3`$, as three kinks are needed to reach the complete inversion of $`Z`$. The population $`Z`$ (as well as the coherences $`X,Y`$) undergoes large scale oscillations, following the bias frequency. A planar $`(X,Y)`$ plot would exhibit similar oscillations associated with $`\varphi `$.

One could argue that a zero-average oscillating bias $`B_z=\omega _0(t)`$ must generate a zero-average $`Z(t)`$. On the contrary, “single spin magnetization” is possible, with hamiltonian dynamics. Indeed, by operating on the “normal” evolution through $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$, we obtained trajectories where $`Z(t)`$ keeps a fixed sign.

This can be understood as follows. Although the L-Z rotations always act additively on $`𝐯`$, if the interposed “normal” evolution inverts the planar components, the sequence of the $`\theta `$ rotations acts on $`Z(t)`$ alternatingly rather than additively.

Under these conditions if, e.g., one starts with $`Z(0)=1`$, and $`\theta =\pi /3`$, at the first crossing $`Z`$ is raised at $`Z0.3`$, but at the next crossing, it turns back to $`Z=1`$. An example is shown in Figs. 3, 4, 5, referring to $`Z(t),𝐯(t),Z(B)`$ respectively.

In this non-adiabatic regime in general we found strong irreversibility; the “symmetry-breaking” solution instead is almost perfectly reversible. This is made clear in Fig. 5, where practically no hysteretic effects are found.

When the transition probability equals $`\frac{1}{2}`$, the population, when started at $`Z=1`$, turns into a perfectly balanced superposition of the two levels $`(Z=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})`$ and the vertical angle is: $`\theta =\pi /2`$. The “in-phase” evolution follows the sequence $`Z=1;\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0};\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1};\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0};1\mathrm{}`$, the “out-of-phase” evolution is given by $`Z=1;\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0};1;\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}\mathrm{}`$. The latter case again generates a completely reversible process.

At much larger values of the transition probability the magnetization aligns to the bias at each step. The field evolves slowly with respect to the two-level system: we are in the adiabatic regime, and we obtain very small deviations from reversibility in the plots $`Z=Z(B)`$ (not shown here).

## 5 Irreversible dynamics: homogeneous case

The simplest non-hermitean generalization of the previous model includes population damping and decoherence. This leads to an homogeneous equation for $`𝐯`$:

$`\dot{X}+\gamma _1X`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _0Y`$
$`\dot{Y}+\gamma _2Y`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _0X\mathrm{\Delta }Z`$ (11)
$`\dot{Z}+\gamma _3Z`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }Y`$
In compact form, we have $`\frac{d}{dt}𝐯=\widehat{B}𝐯`$. Notice that the isotropic case $`\gamma _1=\gamma _2=\gamma _3`$, apart from a Poincaré sphere with decaying radius, is identical to the unitary case.

We thus consider the general case. The large time asymptotics of the solution of Eq.5 can be determined from the eigenvalues $`p_j(t)`$ of the operator $`\widehat{B}(t)`$ .

We limit ourselves to few preliminary results, for the sake of simplicity in the uniaxial case: $`\gamma _1=\gamma _2=\gamma _r;\gamma _3=\gamma `$.

The equation for the right eigenvectors $`𝐄_j(t)`$ reads:

$$\widehat{B}(t)𝐄_j(t)=p_j(t)𝐄_j(t)$$

It can be shown  that the large time asymptotics is determined by the following fundamental solutions:

$$𝐯_j(t)exp\{i_{t_{in}}^tp_j(u)𝑑u\}𝐄_j(t).$$
(12)
Since here we have $`j=1,2,3`$, the eigenvalues can be analytically computed.

It is convenient to shift the variable $`p`$:$`py=p+\gamma _r+\delta ;[\delta =(\gamma \gamma _r)/3]`$. The eigenvalues are then:

$`y_1`$ $`=`$ $`u+v`$
$`y_{2,3}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[(u+v)\pm i\sqrt{3}(uv)]`$ (13)
where $`u^3v^3`$ are the roots of the equation:

$`t^2`$ $`+`$ $`ftg^3=0`$ (14)
$`f`$ $`=`$ $`2\delta [(\mathrm{\Omega }t)^2+\delta ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }^2]`$
$`g`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}[(\mathrm{\Omega }t)^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^23\delta ^2]`$
In the range of parameters we are interested in, both roots of eq. 14 are real-valued.

We keep terms up to the order $`O(1/t^2)`$ in the expansion in powers of $`t`$, and get:

$`p_1(t)`$ $``$ $`\gamma 2\gamma _c{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\mathrm{\Omega }t)^2}}`$
$`p_{2,3}(t)`$ $``$ $`\gamma _r+\gamma _c{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\mathrm{\Omega }t)^2}}\pm i[\mathrm{\Omega }t+{\displaystyle \frac{2\nu }{t}}]`$ (15)
$`\gamma _c`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (\delta ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }^2)`$
The first eigenvalue gives the correction to the damping $`\gamma `$, while $`p_{2,3}`$ in their real part, give the correction to $`\gamma _r`$. It is worth noticing that these corrections act on $`\gamma `$ and$`\gamma _r`$ with opposite signs: in other words, decoherence is slowed down at the expense of damping, and viceversa, according with the sign of $`\gamma _c`$.

The imaginary parts of $`p_{2,3}(t)`$, related with the oscillating behavior and with the branching properties around $`t=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$, are not influenced by decoherence and damping. One verifies that, apart from a factor of $`2`$, which is expected in going from the spinor amplitude to the vector amplitude, the result coincides with the semiclassical momentum $`p(t)`$, given after eq. 10.

In the example of Fig. 6 we assume pure decoherence in the adiabatic regime: the population $`Z`$ follows the bias. Notice that indeed $`Z`$ is damped as expected from the correction to $`\gamma `$ computed previously(see eq. 5, with $`\gamma _c>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$).

The values of $`X`$ and $`Y`$, between crossings, sustain an oscillating $`Z`$ with an $`Z`$ sensitively different from zero.

The symmetry breaking solution, found in the previous section, survives to decoherence, as shown in Fig. 7. Here we have the conditions of Fig. 3, but the decoherence parameters of Fig. 6. One can realize a “magnetized” single spin, by means of an oscillating bias. Here the magnetization is in the direction of the bias field; the situation discussed in ref.  is rather different: there the magnetization is orthogonal to the bias and $`Z`$ relaxes toward the ground state.

When $`\gamma _c<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$, in the adiabatic regime, the dominant effect is that the population decay is enhanced and $`Z(t)`$ rapidly evolves towards zero.

## 6 Inhomogeneous case: relaxation from upper to lower level

The incoherent processes in a two-level system include internal transitions (i.e. interlevel transitions mediated by the surroundings).

Here we analize the effects of incoherent relaxation from the upper to the lower level.

At the L-Z crossings the ground state flips between the two levels, and the inhomogeneous term must change its sign accordingly; we are then led to the inhomogeneous equation:

$`\dot{X}`$ $`+`$ $`\gamma _1X=\omega _0Y`$
$`\dot{Y}`$ $`+`$ $`\gamma _2Y=\omega _0X\mathrm{\Delta }Z`$ (16)
$`\dot{Z}`$ $`+`$ $`\gamma _3(Z+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0}{|\omega _0|}})=\mathrm{\Delta }Y`$
If one were to choose a sign for the inhomogeneous term in Eq. 6, one would describe a situation in which the system would be forced to decay towards a given level. This is appropriate only provided that $`\omega _0`$ has a fixed sign.

The calculations presented in Fig. 8, 9 refer to the adiabatic, strongly damped regime. The population $`Z`$ starts switching from a “magnetized” state to the opposite one, exactly when the external field changes its sign.

The escape from the instability is markedly different from the relaxation towards the stable ground state (see Fig. 9), but this is not the origin of the hysteretic behavior shown in Fig. 8.

In the approach towards a fully “magnetized” state, the coupling between $`Z`$ and the coherences $`X,Y`$ plays a relevant role (see the oscillanting branches in the hysteresis cycle). When the bias retraces its path backwards, the system is already in a fully “magnetized” state $`Z=\pm 1`$, $`X=Y=0`$. Only the onset of the instability, as the bias changes its sign, is able to put the system in motion again.

In conclusion, we have two regimes (incoherent $`X,Y0`$ and coherent $`X,Y0`$ respectively) both compatible with the same value of the bias.

So far we discussed a situation where the period $`2\pi /\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ is much larger than the decay times of the two-level system, so that the external field can be considered as quasi-static. As the decay time gets longer, the system does not relax fast enough towards the “fully magnetized” state: an hysteretic behavior survives, as shown in Fig. 10.

We conclude this section with a last example: we added the relaxation towards the ground state to the system discussed in Fig. 7; the frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ is comparable with $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

In Fig. 11, the fastly oscillating portions refer to the “normal” evolution, and the kinks to the crossings. Notice that the oscillating parts are attracted towards the “fully magnetized” state, which is never reached. The system shows an hysteretic limit cycle (see Fig. 12).

## 7 Conclusions

We examined the time evolution of a two-level system in the presence of an oscillating external field, both in the unitary case and with decoherence and dissipation. We solved, in this context, the Landau-Zener problem in the density matrix formalism, and showed that, in the frequency representation, the population $`\stackrel{~}{Z}(\omega )`$ satisfies a Schrödinger equation for an inverted harmonic oscillator in D=2.

We indicated a procedure allowing to interpret the various dynamical regimes by means of few intuitive rules. We found that it is possible to sustain a magnetization parallel to the bias for the single spin.

We became recently aware of related work , where instead the spin is magnetized in the direction orthogonal to the bias; furthermore, while our result holds in the homogeneous case, in Ref.  relaxation towards a single level is assumed.

We have also shown that one can explicitly solve the Landau-Zener problem in the non-unitary case, by means of a suitable extension of WKB methods. We stress that in our approach the parameters of the equation are completely arbitrary, so that no “adiabatic elimination” of fast variables is needed .

We find that the corrections to $`\gamma `$ and $`\gamma _r`$ have opposite sign. The branching properties of the solution are not modified with respect to the unitary case: the scattering matrix is again a function of the single L-Z parameter $`\nu `$.

When decay from the upper to the lower level is taken into account, we find hysteretic behavior: this effect originates in the coexistence of a fully magnetized state, where the coherences $`X,Y`$ are strictly zero, and a partly magnetized state, with nonzero coherences. This interpretation holds in the overdamped case; at slower dampings an hysteretic limit cycle survives, related with non-adiabatic effects.

## 8  Appendix 1. Inequalities following from complete positivity

The conditions for complete positivity of the evolution, when written for matrix $`A_{ij}`$, are:

$$0\gamma _1\gamma _2+\gamma _30\gamma _2\gamma _3+\gamma _10\gamma _3\gamma _1+\gamma _2$$

together with:

$$4(\gamma ^2+\frac{1}{4}C_1^2)\gamma _1^2(\gamma _2\gamma _3)^2$$

$$4(\beta ^2+\frac{1}{4}C_2^2)\gamma _2^2(\gamma _3\gamma _1)^2$$

$$4(\alpha ^2+\frac{1}{4}C_3^2)\gamma _3^2(\gamma _1\gamma _2)^2$$

$$4\beta (\alpha \gamma \frac{1}{4}C_3C_1)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}C_2(\frac{1}{2}\alpha C_1+\frac{1}{2}\gamma C_3)(\gamma _1+\gamma _3\gamma _2)(\beta ^2+\frac{1}{4}C_2^2)+$$

$$(\gamma _2+\gamma _1\gamma _3)[\alpha ^2+\frac{1}{4}C_3^2\frac{1}{4}\gamma _3^2\frac{1}{4}(\gamma _2\gamma _1)^2]+(\gamma _3+\gamma _2\gamma _1)(\gamma ^2+\frac{1}{4}C_1^2)$$

In our problem we further must take into account $`\omega _0(t)`$, which defines the scale of times, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Thus $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the single relevant parameter of the model.

## 9 Appendix II. Solution of the Landau-Zener problem from the master equation

In this Appendix we summarize the main points of the solution of the L-Z problem, as obtained by starting from the master equation; we omit those details that can be easily implemented from the standard solution.

In the non-dissipative case the Landau-Zener problem is written in the form:

$`\dot{X}`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{\Omega }t)Y`$
$`\dot{Y}`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{\Omega }t)X\mathrm{\Delta }Z`$ (17)
$`\dot{Z}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }Y`$
The variable $`Y`$ can be eliminated from the third equation, and one obtains:

$`\ddot{Z}`$ $`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2Z=\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }tX`$ (18)
$`\dot{X}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}t\dot{Z}`$
Let us define the new variable $`\varphi (t)=X(t)+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mathrm{\Delta }}tZ(t)`$; it is readily verified, by inspecting the second equation in system 18, that from $`\varphi (t)`$ one can recover the entire solution: $`Z(t)=(\mathrm{\Delta }/\mathrm{\Omega })\dot{\varphi }(t);X(t)=\varphi (t)t\varphi (t)`$.

The Fourier transform $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(\omega )=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}exp\{i\omega t\}\varphi (t)𝑑t`$ solves the equation:

$`\widehat{H}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`\widehat{H}={\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^3}{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}`$ $`+`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\omega ^2}})\omega {\displaystyle \frac{}{\omega }}`$
Let us write $`H`$ as:

$`\widehat{H}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{h}\omega `$
$`\widehat{h}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\omega ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\omega }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega ^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\mathrm{\Omega }}})^2+({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{\Omega }}})^2`$ (20)
We find that the function $`\chi (\omega )=\omega \stackrel{~}{\varphi }(\omega )`$, which, apart from a constant factor, is the Fourier transform of the population $`Z(t):(\chi (\omega )=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\stackrel{~}{Z}(\omega ))`$, satisfies the Whittaker equation :

$$\widehat{h}\chi (\omega )=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.$$
(21)
Notice that eq. 21 has the form of a Schrödinger equation for the inverted harmonic oscillator in D=2, with “angular momentum” $`m=\pm 1`$; (clearly in our case $`\omega `$ varies over the whole axis).

The equation can be written in the canonical form of the hypergeometric confluent equation (HCE) by letting: $`q=\omega ^2;\chi (\omega )=exp\{\frac{iq}{2\mathrm{\Omega }}\}(q)^{1/2}u(q)`$.

In terms of the new variable $`q:q=(i\mathrm{\Omega })\xi `$, one finally gets, for the function $`w(\xi )=u(q)`$:

$`\xi {\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{d\xi ^2}}w`$ $`+`$ $`(2\xi ){\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\xi }}w(1+i\nu )w=0`$ (22)
$`\nu ={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{4\mathrm{\Omega }}}`$ .
Two linearly independent solutions, respectively regular at infinity and around zero, are:

$`\chi _1(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`exp\{{\displaystyle \frac{i\omega ^2}{2\mathrm{\Omega }}}\}\omega \mathrm{\Psi }(a,2,{\displaystyle \frac{i\omega ^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }}})`$
$`\chi _2(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`exp\{{\displaystyle \frac{i\omega ^2}{2\mathrm{\Omega }}}\}\omega \mathrm{\Phi }(a,2,{\displaystyle \frac{i\omega ^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }}})`$
$`a=1`$ $`+`$ $`i\nu `$
where $`\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Psi }`$ are the hypergeometric confluent functions of first and second type.

In the L-Z problem the large time region is characterized by high frequencies, since there the level spacing always dominates over the interlevel coupling. Hence the solution $`\chi _1(\omega )`$, having a well-defined behavior at infinity, is the natural choice in our case.

We consider the behavior of the function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(a,c,z)`$:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(a,c,z)(z)^a[1+O(\frac{1}{z})],(z1),$$

and recall that $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ satisfies the identity:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(a,c,z)=(z)^{1c}\mathrm{\Psi }(ac+1,2c,z).$$

If one takes the former properties into account, and uses the identity: $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(\omega )=\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}(\omega )`$), which follows from $`\varphi (t)`$ being real, one obtains:

$`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`Aexp\{{\displaystyle \frac{i\omega ^2}{2\mathrm{\Omega }}}\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega ^2}}\mathrm{\Psi }(i\nu ,0,{\displaystyle \frac{i\omega ^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }}})`$
$`+`$ $`A^{}exp\{{\displaystyle \frac{i\omega ^2}{2\mathrm{\Omega }}}\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega ^2}}\mathrm{\Psi }(i\nu ,0,{\displaystyle \frac{i\omega ^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }}})`$
One recovers the behavior of the population from $`\stackrel{~}{Z}(\omega )=i\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\omega \stackrel{~}{\varphi }(\omega )`$; we have, as $`\omega \mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{Z}(\omega )1/\omega `$.

More precisely, apart from constant factors:

$$\stackrel{~}{Z}(\omega )=i\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{\Omega }\omega }exp\{\pi \nu /2\}[exp\{i\frac{\omega ^2}{2\mathrm{\Delta }}\}(\frac{\omega }{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }}})^{2i\nu }+exp\{i\frac{\omega ^2}{2\mathrm{\Delta }}\}(\frac{\omega }{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }}})^{2i\nu }]$$
(24)
It is easily verified that the correct transition probabilities can be extracted from the branching properties around $`\omega =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ of the solution $`\stackrel{~}{Z}(\omega )`$.

We remind that the standard treatment refers to spinor amplitudes, while $`\stackrel{~}{Z}(\omega )`$ is quadratic in such amplitudes: this explains the factor of $`2`$ in the exponent of $`\omega `$.

The coherence $`\stackrel{~}{X}(\omega )`$, can be found from the identity:

$$\stackrel{~}{X}(\omega )=\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(\omega )+\frac{d}{d\omega }(\omega \stackrel{~}{\varphi }(\omega )).$$

We add the large $`\omega `$ behavior of $`\stackrel{~}{X}(\omega )`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{X}(\omega )\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(12(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\omega })^2)exp\{\pi \nu )/2\}[exp\{i\frac{\omega ^2}{2\alpha }\}(\frac{\omega }{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }}})^{2i\nu }exp\{i\frac{\omega ^2}{2\alpha }\}(\frac{\omega }{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }}})^{2i\nu })]$$

In summary, while the Schrödinger equation leads to the inverted harmonic oscillator in D=1 (Weber equation) in the representation of times, the master equation leads, for $`\stackrel{~}{Z}(\omega )`$, to the D=2 inverted harmonic oscillator. Hence, in the representation of frequencies, it is possible to formulate and solve the L-Z problem in terms of the $`S`$ matrix.

## References


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The study of open string, in the presence of a background Neveu-Schwarz two-form field $`B_{\mu \nu }`$, leading to a noncommutative structure has recently evoked considerable interest . This structure manifests in the noncommutativity in the spacetime coordinates of D-branes, where the end points of the string are attached. Different approaches have been adopted to obtain this result. A Hamiltonian operator treatment was provided in  and a world sheet approach in . Also, an alternative Hamiltonian (Dirac ) approach based on regarding the Boundary Conditions (BC) as constraints was given in ; the corresponding Lagrangian (symplectic) version being done in . The interpretation of the BC as primary constraints usually led to an infinite tower of second class constraints , in contrast to the usual Dirac formulation of constrained systems . Some other approaches to this problem have been discussed in . As has been stressed in , it is very important to understand this noncommutativity from different perspectives.

In the present work, we provide an exhaustive analysis of the noncommutativity in open string theory moving in the presence of a constant Neveu-Schwarz field, in the conventional Hamiltonian framework. In contrast to the usual studies, our model of string theory is very general in the sense that no gauge is fixed at the beginning. Let us recall that all computations of noncommutativity, mentioned before, were done in the conformal gauge. Our gauge independent analysis yields a new noncommutative structure, which correctly reduces to the usual one in conformal gauge. This shows the compatibility of the present analysis with the existing literature. In the general case, the noncommutativity is manifested at all points of the string, in contrast to conformal gauge results where it appears only at the boundaries. Indeed, in this gauge independent scheme, one finds a noncommutative algebra among the coordinates, even for a free string, a fact that was not observed before. Expectedly, this noncommutativity vanishes in the conformal gauge. Note however, that there is no gauge for which noncommutativity vanishes in the interacting theory. To gain further insight, both the Polyakov and Nambu-Goto (NG) formalisms of string theory have been studied.

At the outset, let us point out the crucial difference between existing Hamiltonian analysis  and our approach. This is precisely in the interpretation of the BC arising in the string theory. The general consensus has been to consider the BCs as primary constraints of the theory and attempt a conventional Dirac constraint analysis . The aim is to induce the noncommutativity in the form of Dirac Brackets between coordinates. The subsequent analysis turns out to be ambiguous since it involves the presence of $`\delta (0)`$-like factors, (see Chu and Ho in ). Different results are obtained depending on the interpretation of these factors.

We, on the other hand, do not treat the BCs as constraints, but show that they can be systematically implemented by modifying the canonical Poisson Bracket (PB) structure. In this sense our approach is quite similar in spirit to that of Hanson, Regge and Teitelboim , where modified PBs were obtained for the free NG string, in the orthonormal gauge, which is the counterpart of the conformal gauge in the free Polyakov string.

The paper is organized as follows: In section 2, the gauge independent analysis of free Polyakov string is discussed. This also helps to fix the notations. The free NG string is developed in section 3 for a comparison. A new structure, in the form of an interpolating action is presented in section 4, which connects the Polyakov and NG actions in a smooth way. It also highlights the role of the boundary conditions in the present context. The noncommutativity is revealed in a gauge independent analysis, in free Polyakov model in section 5, which incidentally is a new result. Section 6 discusses the noncommutativity in the interacting theory in the Polyakov formulation and section 7 does the same in the NG formalism. The paper ends with a conclusion in section 8.

## 2 The free Polyakov string

In order to study the various ramifications of different formulations of string theory, let us first consider the free Polyakov string action,

$$S_P=\frac{1}{2}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑\tau _0^\pi 𝑑\sigma \sqrt{g}g^{ab}_aX^\mu _bX_\mu $$
$`(1)`$
where $`\tau `$ and $`\sigma `$ are the usual world-sheet parameters and $`g_{ab}`$, up to a Weyl factor, is the induced metric on the world-sheet. $`X^\mu (\xi )`$ are the string coordinates in the D-dimensional Minkowskian target space with metric $`G_{\mu \nu }=diag(1,1,1..,1)`$. This action has the usual Poincare, Weyl and diffeomorphism invariances. Contrary to the usual approach of working in the reduced space by choosing the conformal gauge at the very beginning, we prefer to carry out the analysis in the complete space by regarding both $`X^\mu `$ and $`g_{ab}`$ as independent dynamical variables . The canonical momenta are,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu =\frac{\delta _P}{\delta (_0X^\mu )}=\sqrt{g}^0X_\mu $$

$$\pi _{ab}=\frac{\delta _P}{\delta (_0g^{ab})}=0$$
$`(2)`$
It is clear that while $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu `$ is a genuine momenta, $`\pi _{ab}0`$ are the primary constraints of the theory. To determine the secondary constraints, one can either follow the traditional Dirac’s Hamiltonian approach, or just read it off from the equation obtained by varying $`g_{ab}`$ since this is basically a Lagrange multiplier. This imposes the vanishing of the symmetric energy-momentum tensor,

$$T_{ab}=\frac{2}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{\delta S_P}{\delta g^{ab}}=_aX^\mu _bX_\mu +\frac{1}{2}g_{ab}g^{cd}_cX^\mu _dX_\mu =0$$
$`(3)`$
Because of the Weyl invariance, the energy-momentum tensor is traceless,

$$T_{}^{a}{}_{a}{}^{}=g^{ab}T_{ab}=0$$
$`(4)`$
so that only two components of $`T_{ab}`$ are independent. These components, which are the constraints of the theory, are given by,

$$\chi _1=gT^{00}=T_{11}=\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Pi }^2+(_1X)^2)=0$$

$$\chi _2=\sqrt{g}T_{}^{0}{}_{1}{}^{}=\mathrm{\Pi }._1X=0$$
$`(5)`$
The canonical Hamiltonian obtained from (1) by a Legendre transformation is given by,

$$H=𝑑\sigma \sqrt{g}T_{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}=𝑑\sigma \sqrt{g}(\frac{1}{2g_{11}}\chi _1+\frac{g_{01}}{\sqrt{g}g_{11}}\chi _2)$$
$`(6)`$
Expectedly, the Hamiltonian turns out to be a linear combination of the constraints.

Just as variation of $`g_{ab}`$ yields the constraints, variation of $`X^\mu `$ gives the equation of motion,

$$_a(\sqrt{g}g^{ab}_bX^\mu )=0$$
$`(7)`$
Finally, there is a mixed BC 444It is a mixed boundary condition in the sense that $`^1X^\mu =g^{11}_1X^\mu +g^{10}_0X^\mu `$ will consist of both $`\tau `$ and $`\sigma `$ derivatives.,

$$^1X^\mu (\tau ,\sigma )|_{\sigma =0,\pi }=0$$
$`(8a)`$
where the string parameters are in the region $`\mathrm{}\tau +\mathrm{}`$, $`0\sigma \pi `$. In the covariant form involving phase space variables, this is given by

$$(_1X^\mu +\sqrt{g}g^{01}\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu )|_{\sigma =0,\pi }=0.$$
$`(8b)`$
It is quite clear that the above boundary conditions are incompatible with the first of the basic Poisson brackets (PB),

$$\{X^\mu (\tau ,\sigma ),\mathrm{\Pi }_\nu (\tau ,\sigma ^{})\}=\delta _\nu ^\mu \delta (\sigma \sigma ^{})$$

$$\{g_{ab}(\tau ,\sigma ),\pi ^{cd}(\tau ,\sigma ^{})\}=\frac{1}{2}(\delta _{}^{c}{}_{a}{}^{}\delta _{}^{d}{}_{b}{}^{}+\delta _{}^{d}{}_{a}{}^{}\delta _{}^{c}{}_{b}{}^{})\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{})$$
$`(9)`$
where $`\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{})`$ is the usual one-dimensional Dirac delta function. We would also like to mention that there is an apparent contradiction of the constraint $`\pi _{ab}0`$ with the PB (9). However this equality is valid in Dirac’s “weak” sense only, so that it can be set equal to zero only after the relevant brackets have been computed. These weak equalities will be designated by $``$, rather than an equality, which is reserved only for a strong equality. In this sense, therefore, there is no clash between this constraint and the relevant PB. Indeed, we can even ignore the canonical pair $`(g_{ab},\pi ^{cd})`$. From the basic PB, it is easy to generate a first class (involutive) algebra,

$$\{\chi _1(\sigma ),\chi _1(\sigma ^{})\}=4(\chi _2(\sigma )+\chi _2(\sigma ^{}))_\sigma \delta (\sigma \sigma ^{}),$$

$$\{\chi _2(\sigma ),\chi _1(\sigma ^{})\}=(\chi _1(\sigma )+\chi _1(\sigma ^{}))_\sigma \delta (\sigma \sigma ^{}),$$

$$\{\chi _2(\sigma ),\chi _2(\sigma ^{})\}=(\chi _2(\sigma )+\chi _2(\sigma ^{}))_\sigma \delta (\sigma \sigma ^{}).$$
$`(10)`$
The situation is quite similar to usual electrodynamics. There the Lagrange multiplier is $`A_0`$, which corresponds to $`g_{ab}`$ in the string theory. The multiplier $`A_0`$ enforces the Gauss constraint just as $`g_{ab}`$ enforces the constraints $`\chi _1`$ and $`\chi _2`$. Furthermore, the Gauss constraint generates the time independent gauge transformations, while $`\chi _1`$, $`\chi _2`$ generate the diffeomorphism transformations.

The BC (8), on the other hand, is not a constraint in the Dirac sense , since it is applicable only at the boundary 555We are therefore differing from recent approaches  which regard the BCs as Dirac constraint. Our views are similar to those of , who discuss the free NG string.. Thus, there has to be an appropriate modification in the PB, to incorporate this condition. This is not unexpected and occurs, for instance, in the example of a free scalar field $`\varphi (x)`$ in $`1+1`$ dimension, subjected to periodic BC of period, say, $`2\pi `$ ($`\varphi (t,x+2\pi )=\varphi (t,x)`$). There the PB between the field $`\varphi (t,x)`$ and its conjugate momentum $`\pi (t,x)`$ are given by,

$$\{\varphi (t,x),\pi (t,y)\}=\delta _P(xy)$$
$`(11a)`$
where,

$$\delta _P(xy)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{n𝒵}{}e^{in(xy)}$$
$`(11b)`$
is the periodic delta function of period $`2\pi `$ and occurs in the closure properties of the basis functions $`e^{inx}`$ for the space of square integrable functions, defined on the unit circle $`S^1`$. In fact, one can easily show that this PB algebra is obtained automatically if one starts with the canonical harmonic oscillator algebra for each mode in the Fourier space.

Before actually computing the modifications in the usual PB, let us take a look at the free NG action.

## 3 The free Nambu-Goto action

The NG action is given by,

$$S_{NG}=d\tau d\sigma [(\dot{X}.X^{})^2\dot{X}^2X_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}]^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
$`(12)`$
where $`X_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }=\frac{X^\mu }{\sigma }=_1X^\mu `$ and $`\dot{X}^\mu =\frac{X^\mu }{\tau }=_0X^\mu `$ have been introduced for notational convenience. Note that, here the induced metric on the world-sheet has not been introduced, as we are exclusively working with $`\tau ,\sigma `$ variables. A systematic constrained analysis of this action has already been carried out in  and here we just give the results. This will also put the analysis of the Polyakov string formulation in a proper perspective. The Euler equations are,

$$_0\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu +_1K^\mu =0$$
$`(13a)`$
where,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu =\frac{L_{NG}}{\dot{X}^\mu }=\frac{(X^{}.\dot{X})X_\mu ^{}X^2\dot{X}_\mu )}{[(X^{}.\dot{X})^2X^2\dot{X}^2]^{\frac{1}{2}}}$$

and

$$K_\mu =\frac{L_{NG}}{X^\mu }=\frac{(X^{}.\dot{X})\dot{X}_\mu \dot{X}^2X_\mu ^{})}{[(X^{}.\dot{X})^2X^2\dot{X}^2]^{\frac{1}{2}}}$$
$`(13b)`$
The definition of the momenta $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu `$ immediately leads to two primary constraints,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^2+X^20$$
$`(14a)`$
$$\mathrm{\Pi }.X^{}0$$
$`(14b)`$
And the BCs are,

$$K_\mu (\tau ,0)=K_\mu (\tau ,\pi )=0$$
$`(15)`$
A simple comparison shows that although the constraints in the Polyakov (5) and NG formulations (14) have the same functional form, the BCs do not share this property (8, 15).

If one wants to match the BCs also, it is necessary to choose a particular gauge. In the NG formulation one can take the orthonormal gauge conditions ,

$$\lambda _\mu (X^\mu (\tau ,\sigma )\frac{\tau }{\pi }𝒫^\mu )0,$$

$$\lambda _\mu (\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu (\tau ,\sigma )\frac{1}{\pi }𝒫^\mu )0,$$
$`(16)`$
where $`\lambda _\mu `$ is an arbitrary constant D-vector and $`𝒫^\mu =_0^\pi 𝑑\sigma \mathrm{\Pi }^\mu `$ denotes the conserved momentum, following from the equations of motion.

With these conditions the NG action weakly (i.e. on the constraint surface) reduces to,

$$S_{NG}\frac{1}{2}𝑑\tau 𝑑\sigma (\dot{X}^2X_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})$$
$`(17)`$
while the BCs become the usual Neumann type:

$$X_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }|_{\sigma =0,\pi }0.$$
$`(18)`$
The orthonormal gauge corresponds to the conformal gauge in the Polyakov formulation, so that the induced metric $`g_{ab}=\eta _{ab}=diag(1,1)`$. Then the Polyakov action (1) and the BC (8) exactly match with the corresponding expressions for the NG case.

## 4 The interpolating free string action

From our analysis in the previous sections, we saw that the NG and Polyakov actions, along with their BCs, agreed in the orthonormal and conformal gauge respectively. Here we discuss a new form of the action that interpolates between the two forms, without the need of any gauge fixing.

The starting point is to rewrite the free NG action in a first order form , incorporating the constraints,

$$_I=\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu \dot{X}^\mu =\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu \dot{X}^\mu +\frac{1}{2}\lambda (\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+X_\mu ^2)+\rho \mathrm{\Pi }_\mu X^\mu $$
$`(19)`$
Note that there is no contribution from the canonical Hamiltonian, obtained by a Legendre transformation, as it vanishes identically- a typical feature of a reparametrisation invariant theory like this. So the expression of the Hamiltonian $``$ appearing here is just a linear combination of the constraints, with $`\lambda `$ and $`\rho `$ playing the roles of Lagrange multipliers enforcing the respective constraints. Consequently, the time evolution of the system here is given by a gauge transformation.

Coming back to (19), we observe that $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu `$ appears here as an auxiliary variable. It is thus possible to eliminate it using its equation of motion. We find,

$$_I=\frac{1}{2\lambda }(\dot{X}_\mu ^2+2\rho \dot{X}_\mu X_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }+(\rho ^2\lambda ^2)X_{}^{}{}_{\mu }{}^{2})$$
$`(20)`$
This is the cherished form of our interpolating Lagrangian.

If $`\rho `$ and $`\lambda `$ are eliminated by their respective equations of motion,

$$\rho =\frac{\dot{X}_\mu X^\mu }{X_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}$$

$$\lambda ^2=\frac{h}{X_{}^{}{}_{\mu }{}^{2}X_{}^{}{}_{\nu }{}^{2}}$$
$`(21)`$
then the above Lagrangian (20) reduces to the NG form (12).

If, on the other hand, we identify $`\rho `$ and $`\lambda `$ with the following contravariant components of the world-sheet metric,

$$g^{ab}=(g)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{\lambda }& \frac{\rho }{\lambda }\\ \frac{\rho }{\lambda }& \frac{(\rho ^2\lambda ^2)}{\lambda }\end{array}\right)$$
$`(22)`$
then the action reduces to the Polyakov form (1). In this sense, therefore, the Lagrangian in (20) is referred to as an interpolating Lagrangian . Also, note that with this mapping, the Hamiltonian read-off from (19) just reproduces the result (6).

Next, the BC is analysed. In general the BC of an open string is given by,

$$K^\mu =\frac{L}{X_\mu ^{}}|_{\sigma =0,\pi }=0.$$

From the interpolating Lagrangian (20), we find,

$$K^\mu =(\frac{\rho }{\lambda }\dot{X}^\mu +\frac{\rho ^2\lambda ^2}{\lambda }X^\mu )|_{\sigma =0,\pi }=0$$
$`(23)`$
at $`\sigma =0,\pi `$. Now using the expressions (21) for $`\rho `$ and $`\lambda `$, we recover the usual BC (15) for NG string.

To get the BC for Polyakov string, it is useful to rewrite (23) in terms of phase space variables, $`X^\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu `$, as

$$K^\mu =(\rho \mathrm{\Pi }^\mu +\lambda X_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu })|_{\sigma =0,\pi }=0$$
$`(24)`$
where

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu =\frac{_I}{\dot{X}_\mu }=\frac{1}{\lambda }(\dot{X}^\mu +\rho X_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu })$$
$`(25)`$
Now identifying $`\rho `$ and $`\lambda `$ with the metric components, it is easy to check that the Polyakov form of BC (8) is reproduced. Hence it is possible to interpret either of (23) or (24) as an interpolating BC.

It is noteworthy that although the Polyakov BC can be expressed in terms of pure phase space variables, the Nambu-Goto BC cannot be done so, because of the presence of velocities in $`\rho `$ (see (21)). This is an important distinction when it comes to the study of the modification in the basic algebra, as will become evident in the next section.

## 5 Boundary Conditions and modified brackets for a free theory

Before discussing the mixed type condition, that emerged in a completely gauge independent formulation of the Polyakov action, consider the simpler Neumann type condition (8) that leads to $`(_1X^\mu )|_{\sigma =0,\pi }=0`$ in an orthonormal (conformal) gauge.

Since the string coordinates $`X^\mu (\tau ,\sigma )`$ transform as a world-sheet scalar under its reparametrisation, it will be even more convenient to get back to our scalar field $`\varphi (t,x)`$ defined on $`1+1`$ dimensional space-time, but with the periodic BC of $`2\pi `$ replaced by Neumann BC

$$_x\varphi |_{\sigma =0,\pi }=0$$
$`(26)`$
at the end points of a 1-dimensional box of compact size, i.e. of length $`\pi `$. Correspondingly, the $`\delta _P(x)`$ appearing there in the PB (11)-consistent with periodic BC- have to be replaced now with a suitable “delta function” incorporating Neumann BC, rather than periodic BC. Interestingly, such a “delta function” is not difficult to construct from purely algebraic arguments.

One starts by noting that the usual properties of a delta function is also satisfied by $`\delta _P(x)`$:

$$_\pi ^{+\pi }𝑑x^{}\delta _P(x^{}x)f(x^{})=f(x)$$
$`(27)`$
for any periodic function $`f(x)=f(x+2\pi )`$ defined in the interval $`[\pi ,+\pi ]`$. Let us now restrict to the case of even (odd) functions $`f_\pm (x)=\pm f_\pm (x)`$. Then it can be easily seen that the above integral (27) reduces to,

$$_0^\pi 𝑑x^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm (x^{},x)f_\pm (x^{})=f_\pm (x)$$
$`(28)`$
where,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm (x^{},x)=\delta _P(x^{}x)\pm \delta _P(x^{}+x)$$
$`(29a)`$
Using (11b), the explicit form of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+(\sigma ^{},\sigma )`$, in particular, can be given as,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_+(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})=\frac{1}{\pi }+\frac{1}{\pi }\underset{n0}{}cos(n\sigma ^{})cos(n\sigma )$$
$`(29b)`$
We will not have to deal with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\sigma ^{},\sigma )`$ henceforth in our paper, for reasons explained below.

Since any function $`\varphi (x)`$ defined in the interval $`[0,\pi ]`$ can be regarded as a part of an even/odd function $`f_\pm (x)`$ defined in the interval $`[\pi ,\pi ]`$, both $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm (\sigma ^{},\sigma )`$ act as delta functions defined in half of the interval at the right i.e.$`[0,\pi ]`$ (28). It is still not clear which of these $`\mathrm{\Delta }(x^{},x)`$ functions should replace $`\delta _P(x^{}x)`$ in the PB relation. We can invoke the Neumann BC, at this stage, to fix the matter. To see this, consider the Fourier decomposition of an arbitrary function $`f(x)`$ satisfying periodic BC, ($`f(x)=f(x+2\pi )`$)

$$f(x)=\underset{n𝒵}{}f_ne^{inx}.$$
$`(30)`$
Clearly,

$$f^{}(0)=i\underset{n>0}{}n(f_nf_n)$$

$$f^{}(\pi )=i\underset{n>0}{}(1)^nn(f_nf_n)$$
$`(31)`$
Now for even(odd) functions, the Fourier coefficients are related as,

$$f_n=\pm f_n$$
$`(32)`$
so that Neumann’s BC

$$f^{}(0)=f^{}(\pi )=0$$
$`(33)`$
are satisfied if and only if $`f(x)`$ is even. Therefore, one has to regard the scalar field $`\varphi (x)`$ defined in the interval $`[0,\pi ]`$ and subjected to Neumann BC (26) as a part of an even periodic function $`f_+(x)`$ defined in the extended interval $`[\pi ,+\pi ]`$. It thus follows that the appropriate PB for the scalar theory is given by,

$$\{\varphi (t,x),\pi (t,x^{})\}=\mathrm{\Delta }_+(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})$$

It is clearly consistent with Neumann BC as $`_\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }_+(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})|_{\sigma =0,\pi }=_\sigma ^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_+(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})|_{\sigma =0,\pi }=0`$ is automatically satisfied. It is straightforward to generalise it to the string case, where it is given by,

$$\{X^\mu (\tau ,\sigma ),\mathrm{\Pi }_\nu (\tau ,\sigma ^{})\}=\delta _\nu ^\mu \mathrm{\Delta }_+(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})$$
$`(34a)`$
and the Lorentz indices are playing the role of “isospin” indices, as viewed from the world-sheet. This form first appeared in . Observe also that the other brackets

$$\{X^\mu (\tau ,\sigma ),X^\nu (\tau ,\sigma ^{})\}=0$$
$`(34b)`$
and

$$\{\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu (\tau ,\sigma ),\mathrm{\Pi }^\nu (\tau ,\sigma ^{})\}=0$$
$`(34c)`$
are consistent with the BCs and hence remain unchanged.

For a gauge independent analysis, the Nambu-Goto BC poses problems since it cannot be expressed in phase space variables. To overcome this problem it is necessary to fix a gauge and this was elaborated in section 3. The generalisation of this in the interacting NG string will be given later in section 7. Here we take recourse to the mixed condition (8) that occurs in the Polyakov string. A simple inspection shows that this is also compatible with the modified brackets (34a, 34c), but not with (34b). Hence the bracket among the coordinates should be altered suitably. We therefore make an ansatz,

$$\{X^\mu (\tau ,\sigma ),X^\nu (\tau ,\sigma ^{})\}=C^{\mu \nu }(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})$$
$`(35a)`$
where,

$$C^{\mu \nu }(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})=C^{\nu \mu }(\sigma ^{},\sigma ).$$
$`(35b)`$
Imposing the BC (8) on this algebra, we get,

$$_\sigma ^{}C^{\mu \nu }(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})|_{\sigma ^{}=0,\pi }=_\sigma C^{\mu \nu }(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})|_{\sigma =0,\pi }=\sqrt{g}g^{01}\{\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu (\tau ,\sigma ),X^\nu (\tau ,\sigma ^{})\}$$

$$=\sqrt{g}g^{01}G^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Delta }_+(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})$$
$`(36)`$
For an arbitrary form of the metric tensor, it might be technically problematic to find a solution for $`C^{\mu \nu }(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})`$. However, for a restricted class of metric 666Such conditions also follow from a standard treatment of the light-cone gauge  that satisfy,

$$_1g_{ab}=0$$
$`(37)`$
it is possible to give a quick solution of $`C^{\mu \nu }(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})`$ as,

$$C^{\mu \nu }(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})=\sqrt{g}g^{01}G^{\mu \nu }[\mathrm{\Theta }(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})\mathrm{\Theta }(\sigma ^{},\sigma )]$$
$`(38)`$
where the generalised step function $`\mathrm{\Theta }(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})`$ satisfies,

$$_\sigma \mathrm{\Theta }(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})=\mathrm{\Delta }_+(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})$$
$`(39)`$
An explicit form of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is given by ,

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})=\frac{\sigma }{\pi }+\frac{1}{\pi }\underset{n0}{}\frac{1}{n}sin(n\sigma )cos(n\sigma ^{}),$$
$`(40a)`$
having the properties,

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})=1for\sigma >\sigma ^{},$$

and

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})=0for\sigma <\sigma ^{}.$$
$`(40b)`$
Using these relations, the simplified structure of noncommutative algebra follows,

$$\{X^\mu (\tau ,\sigma ),X^\nu (\tau ,\sigma ^{})\}=0for\sigma =\sigma ^{}$$

$$\{X^\mu (\tau ,\sigma ),X^\nu (\tau ,\sigma ^{})\}=\pm \sqrt{g}g^{01}G^{\mu \nu }for\sigma >\sigma ^{}and\sigma <\sigma ^{}$$
$`(41)`$
respectively. Thus a noncommutative algebra for distinct coordinates $`\sigma \sigma ^{}`$ of the string emerges automatically in a free string theory if a gauge independent analysis is carried out like this. But this non-commutativity can be made to vanish in gauges like conformal gauge, where $`g^{01}=0`$, thereby restoring the usual commutative structure. However, the non-commutativity among the string coordinates cannot be made to vanish in any gauge if the string is coupled to a constant external B-field, as we show in the next section.

Before we conclude this section, we would like to mention that the essential structure of the involutive algebra (10) is still preserved, only that $`\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{})`$ has to be replaced by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})`$. And this is despite the fact that the original basic brackets (9) have now been modified to (34a,34c,41). Indeed, using these relations, one can show that

$$\{\chi _1(\sigma ),\chi _1(\sigma ^{})\}=4(\chi _2(\sigma )+\chi _2(\sigma ^{}))_\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }_+(\sigma ,\sigma ^{}),$$

$$\{\chi _2(\sigma ),\chi _1(\sigma ^{})\}=(\chi _1(\sigma )+\chi _1(\sigma ^{}))_\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }_+(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})$$
$`(42)`$
$$\{\chi _2(\sigma ),\chi _2(\sigma ^{})\}=(\chi _2(\sigma )+\chi _2(\sigma ^{}))_\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }_+(\sigma ,\sigma ^{}).$$

Note that, contrary to the usual case, the right hand side vanishes identically on the boundary. A crucial intermediate step in this derivation is to use the relation,

$$\{X^\mu (\sigma ),X^\nu (\sigma ^{})\}=0$$

which follows from the basic bracket (41).

## 6 The interacting theory: Polyakov formulation

The Polyakov action for a bosonic string moving in the presence of a constant background Neveu-Schwarz two-form field $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ is given by,

$$S_P=𝑑\tau 𝑑\sigma (\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{g}g^{ab}_aX^\mu _bX_\mu +eϵ^{ab}B_{\mu \nu }_aX^\mu _bX^\nu )$$
$`(43)`$
where we have introduced a ‘coupling constant’ $`e`$ and $`ϵ^{01}=ϵ^{10}=+1`$. Here too we shall carry out a gauge independent analysis at the beginning, rather than making use of any gauge fixing condition (like conformal gauge) right at this stage. A usual canonical analysis leads to the following set of primary first class constraints,

$$gT^{00}=\frac{1}{2}[(\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu +eB_{\mu \nu }_1X^\nu )^2+(_1X)^2]0$$
$`(44)`$
$$\sqrt{g}T_{}^{0}{}_{1}{}^{}=\mathrm{\Pi }._1X0$$
$`(45)`$
where

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu =\sqrt{g}^0X_\mu +eB_{\mu \nu }_1X^\nu $$
$`(46)`$
is the momentum conjugate to $`X^\mu `$.

Likewise, the BC is given by,

$$(^1X^\mu +\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}eB^{\mu \nu }_0X_\nu )|_{\sigma =0,\pi }=0$$
$`(47)`$
Using phase space variables, this can be written in a completely covariant form as,

$$((_1X_\rho )M_{}^{\rho }{}_{\mu }{}^{}+\mathrm{\Pi }^\nu N_{\nu \mu })|_{\sigma =0,\pi }=0$$
$`(48)`$
where,

$$M_{}^{\rho }{}_{\mu }{}^{}=\frac{1}{g_{11}}[\delta _{}^{\rho }{}_{\mu }{}^{}\frac{2e}{\sqrt{g}}g_{01}B_{}^{\rho }{}_{\mu }{}^{}+e^2B^{\rho \nu }B_{\nu \mu }]$$
$`(49a)`$
$$N_{\nu \mu }=\frac{g^{01}}{g^{00}\sqrt{g}}G_{\nu \mu }\frac{1}{g_{11}}eB_{\nu \mu }$$
$`(49b)`$
are two matrices. This nontrivial BC leads to a modification in the original (naive) canonical PBs.

Now the BC (48) is recast as,

$$(_1X_\mu +\mathrm{\Pi }^\rho (NM^1)_{\rho \mu })|_{\sigma =0,\pi }=0$$
$`(50)`$
The $`\{X^\mu (\sigma ),\mathrm{\Pi }_\nu (\sigma ^{})\}`$ PB is the same as that of the free string (34a). Considering the general structure (35), we obtain,

$$\{_\sigma X^\mu (\sigma ),X^\nu (\sigma ^{})\}=_\sigma C^{\mu \nu }(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})$$
$`(51)`$
Putting the BC and exploiting (34a), we get

$$_\sigma C_{\mu \nu }(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})_{\sigma =0,\pi }=(NM^1)_{\nu \mu }\mathrm{\Delta }_+(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})_{\sigma =0,\pi }.$$
$`(52)`$
As we did in the free case, we restrict to the class of metrics defined by (37). Taking a cue from the free theory, the solution for $`C_{\mu \nu }(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})`$ must involve the generalised $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ function, introduced in (40). Splitting $`(NM^1)_{\nu \mu }`$ into its symmetric $`(NM^1)_{(\nu \mu )}`$ and antisymmetric $`(NM^1)_{[\nu \mu ]}`$ components, a general solution for $`C_{\mu \nu }`$ is given by,

$$C_{\mu \nu }(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})=\frac{1}{2}(NM^1)_{(\nu \mu )}[\mathrm{\Theta }(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})\mathrm{\Theta }(\sigma ^{},\sigma )]+\frac{1}{2}(NM^1)_{[\nu \mu ]}[\mathrm{\Theta }(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})+\mathrm{\Theta }(\sigma ^{},\sigma )1].$$
$`(53)`$
Observe that, by demanding (35b), $`(NM^1)_{(\nu \mu )}`$ must be multiplied by an antisymmetric combination of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$’s, which is precisely $`[\mathrm{\Theta }(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})\mathrm{\Theta }(\sigma ^{},\sigma )]`$ Likewise, the other factor $`(NM^1)_{[\nu \mu ]}`$ must be multiplied by a symmetric combination $`[\mathrm{\Theta }(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})+\mathrm{\Theta }(\sigma ^{},\sigma )]`$, plus an undetermined constant. We fix this constant to $`(1)`$ by requiring that the vanishing result (41) in the free case is retained for all $`\sigma =\sigma ^{}`$ away from the boundary (using $`\mathrm{\Theta }(\sigma ,\sigma )=\frac{1}{2}`$). An advantage of this normalisation is that by passing to the conformal gauge, where $`g=1`$ and $`g^{01}=0`$, one obtains,

$$C_{\mu \nu }(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})=\stackrel{~}{B}_{\mu \nu }[\mathrm{\Theta }(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})+\mathrm{\Theta }(\sigma ^{},\sigma )1]$$
$`(54a)`$
where,

$$\stackrel{~}{B}_{\mu \nu }=e[B(1+e^2B^2)^1]_{\mu \nu }$$
$`(54b)`$
which reproduces the standard non-commutative algebra in the presence of a background field .

It is evident that the modified algebra is gauge dependent, depending on the choice of the metric. However, there is no choice, for which the non-commutativity vanishes. To show this, note that the origin of the non-commutativity is the presence of non-vanishing $`\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu `$ term in the BC (48). If this can be eliminated, then the usual commutative algebra is obtained. This requires $`N_{\nu \mu }=0`$. From (49b) this implies $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ have to be proportional which obviously cannot happen, as the former is an antisymmetric and the latter is a symmetric tensor. Hence non-commutativity will persist for any choice of world-sheet metric $`g_{ab}`$. Specially interesting are the expressions for noncommutativity (53) at the boundaries,

$$C_{\mu \nu }(0,0)=C_{\mu \nu }(\pi ,\pi )=\frac{1}{2}(NM^1)_{[\nu \mu ]},C_{\mu \nu }(0,\pi )=C_{\mu \nu }(\pi ,0)=\frac{1}{2}(NM^1)_{(\nu \mu )}.$$
$`(55)`$
It should be pointed out that in the conformal gauge, $`(NM^1)`$ does not have a symmetric component, so that

$$C_{\mu \nu }(0,\pi )=C_{\mu \nu }(\pi ,0)=0.$$

## 7 The interacting theory: Nambu-Goto formulation

Although the Polyakov and NG formulations for free strings are regarded to be classically equivalent, there are some subtle issues. Indeed the structures of BC’s in the two formulations are different as was also illuminated by our interpolating action. Also more complications are expected in the presence of interactions. Since the occurrence of noncommutativity is directly connected with the BC’s, it is therefore useful to study this feature in the NG formulation. This motivates us to carry out an exhaustive analysis of the classical relativistic string interacting with a constant, second rank, antisymmetric tensor $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ in the NG formulation in this subsection. Here we present a generalisation of the analysis of Hanson, Regge and Teitelboim  for the free string, to show that the noncommutativity appears directly from taking proper account of the boundary conditions. The analysis for the free theory  has already been reproduced briefly in section 3.

We start with the action,

$$S=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑\tau _0^\pi 𝑑\sigma [_0+eB_{\mu \nu }\dot{X}^\mu X^\nu ]$$
$`(56)`$
Here $`_0`$ denotes the free string Lagrangian density appearing in (12). From the variation of the action, we obtain the following equations of motion and the BC’s,

$$\dot{\mathrm{\Pi }}^\mu +K^\mu =0,$$
$`(57)`$
$$K^\mu |_{\sigma =0,\pi }=0,$$
$`(58)`$
where

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu =\frac{}{\dot{X}_\mu }=_0^1(X^2\dot{X}^\mu +(\dot{X}.X^{})X^\mu )+eB^{\mu \nu }X_\nu ^{},$$
$`(59)`$
$$K^\mu =\frac{}{X_\mu ^{}}=_0^1(\dot{X}^2X_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }+(\dot{X}.X^{})\dot{X}^\mu )eB^{\mu \nu }\dot{X}_\nu .$$
$`(60)`$
The Primary constraints of the theory are,

$$\chi _1=(\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu eB^{\mu \nu }X_\nu ^{})^2+X^20,\chi _2=\mathrm{\Pi }.X^{}0.$$
$`(61)`$
which are similar to those obtained in the Polyakov version (see (44,45)). Using the standard canonical PB, it is straightforward to verify the diffeomorphism algebra (10).

A gauge independent analysis, as was done for the Polyakov formulation, is not feasible here, since the BC involves time derivatives that are not eliminatable in terms of the momenta. To properly account for the BCs, a gauge choice becomes necessary. This is equally valid for a free theory. As was shown in  and discussed in section 3, the free theory becomes most tractable in the orthonormal gauge. Inspired by their choice, we consider the following gauge conditions,

$$\lambda _\mu (X^\mu \frac{𝒫^\mu \tau }{\pi })0,\lambda _\mu (\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu \frac{𝒫^\mu }{\pi })0,$$
$`(62)`$
which for $`e=0`$ reduce to the orthonormal gauge in free theory. Here $`\lambda _\mu `$ is a constant D-vector. For our present analysis there arises no need to fix $`\lambda _\mu `$. Same notations as in section 3 are used here.

Let us study the consequences of the gauge choice. From the gauge conditions (62), we obtain $`_0(\lambda .\mathrm{\Pi })=\frac{_0(\lambda .𝒫)}{\pi }=0`$ and together with the equations of motion (57) this leads to $`_1(\lambda .K)=0`$. Compatibility with the BC (58) then ensures that $`\lambda .K=0`$ for all $`\sigma `$. Again, from the gauge choice (62), we find $`\lambda .X^{}=0`$ and $`\lambda .\dot{X}=(\lambda .\mathrm{\Pi })`$ . In short, the following three exact relations are valid,

$$\lambda .K=0,\lambda .X^{}=0,\lambda .\dot{X}=(\lambda .\mathrm{\Pi }).$$
$`(63)`$
From the defining equations (59),(60) and (62), we find,

$$(\lambda .\mathrm{\Pi })=_0^1X^2(\lambda .\dot{X})+eB^{\mu \nu }\lambda _\mu X_\nu ^{},$$
$`(64)`$
$$\lambda .K=_0^1(\dot{X}.X^{})(\lambda .\dot{X})eB^{\mu \nu }\lambda _\mu \dot{X}_\nu =0.$$
$`(65)`$
Using (62) once again we obtain,

$$_0^1X^2=1+e𝒜,_0^1(\dot{X}.X^{})=e$$
$`(66a)`$
where,

$$𝒜=\frac{B^{\mu \nu }\lambda _\mu X_\nu ^{}}{\lambda .\mathrm{\Pi }},=\frac{B^{\mu \nu }\lambda _\mu \dot{X}_\nu }{\lambda .\mathrm{\Pi }}.$$
$`(66b)`$
From now on we will work in the lowest nontrivial order in the coupling $`e`$. The explicit expressions for $`𝒜`$ and $``$ are not needed for the $`O(e)`$ results presented here. Recalling the explicit form of $`_0`$ from (56), we find,

$$_0(\dot{X}^2X^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
$`(67)`$
Using (66) we obtain,

$$X^2=\dot{X}^2(12e𝒜)\dot{X}^2+X^22e𝒜\dot{X}^2.$$

The $`O(e)`$ correction to the orthonormality vanishes in the free theory ($`e=0`$), where $`\dot{X}.X^{}=0`$, and $`\dot{X}^2+X^2=0`$ . Now $`_0`$ is simplified to,

$$_0(\dot{X}^2X^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}\dot{X}^2(1e𝒜)$$

$$[\frac{1}{2}(\dot{X}^2X^2)e𝒜(\dot{X}^2+X^2)]\frac{1}{2}(\dot{X}^2X^2)$$
$`(68).`$
Finally we recover the Lagrangian of the string coupled to $`B_{\mu \nu }`$, in this particular gauge, to lowest order in the coupling $`e`$ as,

$$=\frac{1}{2}(\dot{X}^2X^{})+eB_{\mu \nu }\dot{X}^\mu X^\nu +O(e^2)$$
$`(69)`$
The equation of motion in this gauge is that of a free theory,

$$(_0^2_1^2)X^\mu =0,$$
$`(70)`$
but crucial modifications have appeared in the BC,

$$(X^\mu +\frac{e}{N}B_{\mu \nu }\dot{X}^\nu )|_{\sigma =0,\pi }=0.$$
$`(71)`$
In fact, the interaction have changed the BC from Neumann type in free theory to a mixed one. Elimination of $`\dot{X}_\mu `$ from (58) reproduces the BC in phase space,

$$X^\mu +e(M^1B)^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Pi }_\nu =0,$$
$`(72)`$
where $`M^{\mu \lambda }=G^{\mu \lambda }\frac{e^2}{N^2}B^{\mu \nu }B_\nu ^\lambda `$. It is amusing to note that this BC is identical to the one used in the Polyakov model in the conformal gauge  but in our case we should consider $`M^{\mu \lambda }G^{\mu \lambda }`$, since our results are of $`O(e)`$ only.

It is worthwhile to make a comparison with Polyakov formulation at this stage. The Lagrangian (69) is identical to the Polyakov one (43) in the conformal gauge. There is a similar mapping between BCs (72) and (48) again in the conformal gauge. Consequently, we shall be reproducing the same set of modified brackets (34a) and (54), displaying noncommutativity among various coordinates. It should be emphasised, however, that this agreement is only upto $`𝒪(e)`$ in the coupling parameter in the specific gauge (62).

## 8 Conclusion

In this paper we have derived expressions for a noncommutative algebra that are more general than the standard results found in the conformal gauge. Indeed, our results reproduce the standard ones, once the conformal gauge is implemented.

The origin of any modification in the usual Poisson algebra is the presence of boundary conditions. This phenomenon is quite well known for a free scalar field subjected to periodic boundary conditions. We showed that its exact analogue is the conformal gauge fixed free string, where the boundary condition is of Neuman-type. This led to a modification only in the $`\{X^\mu (\sigma ),\mathrm{\Pi }_\nu (\sigma ^{})\}`$ algebra, where the usual Dirac delta function got replaced by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})`$. A more general type of boundary condition occurs in the gauge independent formulation of a free Polyakov string. Using certain algebraic consistency requirements, we showed that the boundary conditions in the free theory naturally led to a noncommutative structure among the coordinates. This non-commutativity vanishes in the conformal gauge, as expected.

The same technique was adopted for the interacting string. A more involved boundary condition led to a more general type of noncommutativity than has been observed before. Contrary to the standard conformal gauge expressions, this noncommutative algebra survives at all points of the string and not just at the boundaries. Furthermore, in contrast to the free theory, this noncommutativity cannot be removed in any gauge. We have also shown that, the noncommutativity does not affect the usual diffeomorphism algebra among the gauge generators. In the conformal gauge, our results reduce to the standard noncommutativity found only at the string end points.

A perturbative analysis of the noncommutativity has also been performed in the interacting Nambu-Goto string. Surprisingly, the conformal gauge result in the Polyakov formulation is reproduced in the Nambu-Goto scheme in the lowest nontrivial order in the Neveu-Schwarz coupling, in an orthonormal-like gauge. It would be interesting to see if there is an alternative gauge condition in which the above equivalence can be shown exactly.