text:
# Anomalous transparency for near-top Bloch states of periodic potential

## I  <br>Introduction

Bloch functions are the basis of periodic system theory, particularly of crystalline solid physics  and optical lattices. For a high-precision approximation of a standing wave (sinusoidal potential), by one of the authors was suggested a biparabolic form for the potential, Bloch functions of which are expressed by confluent hypergeometric functions. The approximation for the potential has been used to calculate the spontaneous emission in the field of resonant standing wave, the presence of light-induced anisotropy in that emission was shown . Also it was used for calculating the temperature of ideal gas BEC in a periodic field and was shown that the critical temperature decreases with the deepening of the potential.

In this paper the biparabolic periodic potential is used to investigate the Bloch states themselves, more concretely, for identifying the behavior of modulo wave function as a function of energy in the limits of a specific energy band. Specially we are interested in so-called ”underbarrier” (classically forbidden) states.

The way of dependance of underbarrier states on energy is well-known for a single potential barrier and for transitions from one energy band to the neighboring ones: the underbarrier wave function decreases conjointly with the decreasing of energy of a particle. But what is the kind of dependance in the limits of a sole (definite) energy band? Surprisingly this question has slipped from investigators sight; at least in scientific literature available to us we did not find works concerning this question. As a formal argument for examining this question, for us appears the fact that Bloch states are generated through the interference of particle de Broglie waves transmitted and deflected from many (infinite in the limit) potential barriers, and hence interference, besides the energy, also will play an essential role in establishment of regularities. Of course, the deflection and interference of underbarrier states take place in case of a single-barrier potential too, but they are small there and as a dominating behavior will appear the energetic behavior. Consequently, the inter-band regularity is not under necessity to be repeated for intra-band states too. Really, in case of periodic potential, when from different barriers multiple-wave interference takes place, as a dominating one can appear the interference behavior , and the dominant role of interference will be expected for intra-band regularities. Than, if the interference behavior does not coincide with energy one, the general behavior will mimic the interference but not energy regularity. Our calculations show that indeed, when particle’s energy decreases in limits of a definite band, the modulus of the wave function of underbarrier (classically forbidden) region does not decrease, as should be expected from energy reasonings, but increases. The growth rate is the greatest for the band, nearest to the height of periodic potential.

## II Biparabolic potential and near-top Bloch state approximation

Stationary Schrödinger equation can be written in a standard form

$$\left(\frac{d^2}{dz^2}+EV(z)\right)\mathrm{\Psi }(z)=0,$$
(1)
where the particle coordinate $`z`$ is normalized in units of the potential period $`L`$ with coefficient $`2\pi `$ ($`z=2\pi z/L=kz,`$ $`k`$ is the one-dimensional reciprocal lattice constant) and the full energy $`E`$ and the potential energy $`V(z)`$ are normalized in units of ”lattice” recoil energy quantum $`E_r=\mathrm{}^2k^2/2M`$, where $`M`$ is mass of the particle. Taking for convenience the zero of the energy on the level of potential energy minimums, biparabolic potential $`V(z)`$ takes the form (see for more details  or )

$$V(z)=\frac{1+(1)^m}{2}V(1)^m\chi (zm\pi )^2,$$
(2)
where $`V`$ is the height of the periodic potential, $`\chi =2V/\pi ^2`$, $`m=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{},`$ and $`z`$ for each $`m`$ lays in range $`(m1/2)\pi z(m+1/2)\pi .`$

The form of the potential is given in fig.1, where region $`I`$ (and others similar to it) will be named well-type, and region $`II`$ (and similar ones) - barrier-type.

Linearly independent solutions of Schrödinger Eq.(1) for well-type region $`I`$ are written in form ,

$$\phi _1(z)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\sqrt{\chi }z_1^2}{2}\right)\mathrm{\Phi }(\alpha ,\frac{1}{2};\sqrt{\chi }z_1^2),$$
(3)
$$\phi _2(z)=z_1\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\sqrt{\chi }z_1^2}{2}\right)\mathrm{\Phi }(\alpha +\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2};\sqrt{\chi }z_1^2),$$
(4)
where $`z_1=z\pi ,`$ $`\pi /2z3\pi /2`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(..,..;..)`$ is the confluent hypergeometric function and

$$\alpha =\frac{1}{4}\left(1\frac{E}{\sqrt{\chi }}\right).$$
(5)
The total wave function in this region will be

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_I(z)=c_1\phi _1(z)+c_2\phi _2(z),$$
(6)
where $`c_1`$ and $`c_{2\text{ }}`$are unknown constant coefficients.

The corresponding solutions for barrier-type region $`II`$ have the form

$$\overline{\phi }_1(z)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i\sqrt{\chi }z_2^2}{2}\right)\mathrm{\Phi }(\beta ,\frac{1}{2};i\sqrt{\chi }z_2^2),$$
(7)
$$\overline{\phi }_2(z)=z_2\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i\sqrt{\chi }z_2^2}{2}\right)\mathrm{\Phi }(\beta +\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2};i\sqrt{\chi }z_2^2),$$
(8)
where $`z_2=z2\pi ,`$ $`3\pi /2z5\pi /2`$ and

$$\beta =\frac{1}{4}\left(1i\frac{EV}{\sqrt{\chi }}\right),$$
(9)
and the total wave function in this region will be

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{II}(z)=\overline{c}_1\overline{\phi }_1(z)+\overline{c}_2\overline{\phi }_2(z),$$
(10)
with yet arbitrary coefficients $`\overline{c}_1`$ and $`\overline{c}_2.`$

With the help of continuity requirements at boundary points $`z=3\pi /2`$ and $`5\pi /2`$ and Bloch periodicity we get the dispersion relation, which can be written in form

$$\mathrm{cos}(2\pi P)=1+2G_{11}(E)G_{22}(E),$$
(11)
or

$$\mathrm{cos}(2\pi P)=1+2G_{12}(E)G_{21}(E),$$
(12)
where $`P=p/2\mathrm{}k`$ is the normalized momentum of particle and

$$G_{ij}(E)=\left\{\phi _i(z)\overline{\phi }_j^/(z)+\phi _i^/(z)\overline{\phi }_j(z)\right\}_{z=\pi /2}\text{ },\text{ }i,j=1,2.$$
(13)
where the prime over the function means derivative with respect to $`z.`$

The same requirements, as is well known, with additional normalizing condition

$$_{\pi /2}^{3\pi /2}\left|\mathrm{\Psi }_I(z)\right|^2𝑑z+_{3\pi /2}^{5\pi /2}\left|\mathrm{\Psi }_{II}(z)\right|^2𝑑z=1,$$
(14)
define the coefficients $`c_{1,2}`$ and $`\overline{c}_{1,2}.`$

The edge values of energy bands according to (11) and (12) are determined as solutions of transcendental equations

$$G_{ij}(E)=0.$$
(15)
Analysis of these conditions shows that left- and right-side edge points on the positive-side axis of quasimomentum (expanded conception of energy bands) are determined from conditions $`G_{11}(E)=0`$ and $`G_{12}(E)=0`$ respectively for $`n`$ being even, and by conditions $`G_{21}(E)=0`$ and $`G_{22}(E)=0`$ for $`n`$ being odd. For keeping analogy with the harmonic potential the band with the smallest energy is designated $`n=0.`$

For even-numbered bands it is appropriate to express the coefficients by $`c_{1,}`$

$$c_2=\frac{G_{11}(E)}{G_{21}(E)}\frac{e^{i2\pi P}+1}{e^{i2\pi P}1}c_{1,}$$
(16)
$$\overline{c}_1=\frac{e^{i2\pi P}+1}{2G_{21}(E)}c_{1,}\text{ }\overline{c}_2=\frac{e^{i2\pi P}1}{2G_{22}(E)}c_{1,}$$
(17)
where $`c_1`$ is determined from the normalizing condition. For odd-numbered bands it is appropriate to express the coefficients by $`c_2`$;

$$c_1=\frac{G_{21}(E)}{G_{11}(E)}\frac{e^{i2\pi P}1}{e^{i2\pi P}+1}c_{2,}$$
(18)
$$\overline{c}_1=\frac{e^{i2\pi P}1}{2G_{11}(E)}c_{2,}\text{ }\overline{c}_2=\frac{e^{i2\pi P}+1}{2G_{12}(E)}c_{2,}$$
(19)
and use the normalizing condition to determine $`c_{2.}`$

Let’s now consider the states, with energies near to the height $`V`$ of periodic potential: $`EV.`$ In fig.1 these energies lay inside the dotted lines. For them the parameter $`\beta `$ (see (9)), which determines the character of Bloch wave functions in barrier-type region, possesses the value $`\beta =1/4.`$ The corresponding formulas (7) and (8) are simplified with help of a well known representation for Bessel functions $`J_\nu (x)`$ by confluent hypergeometric ones:

$$J_\nu (x)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu +1)}\left(\frac{x}{2}\right)^\nu e^{ix}\mathrm{\Phi }(\frac{1}{2}+\nu ,1+2\nu ,2ix),$$
(20)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu +1)`$ is the gamma function. To use this formula for (7) we must choose $`\nu =1/4`$, and for (8) - $`\nu =1/4.`$ After corresponding substitutions we arrive to

$$\overline{\phi }_1(z)=\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{3}{4}\right)\left(\frac{\sqrt{\chi }z^2}{4}\right)^{1/4}J_{1/4}\left(\frac{\sqrt{\chi }z^2}{2}\right),$$
(21)
$$\overline{\phi }_2(z)=\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{5}{4}\right)z\left(\frac{\sqrt{\chi }z^2}{4}\right)^{1/4}J_{1/4}\left(\frac{\sqrt{\chi }z^2}{2}\right).$$
(22)
To avoid misunderstandings we note, that though linearly independent solutions $`\overline{\phi }_1(z)`$ and $`\overline{\phi }_2(z)`$ for the considered approximation do not depend on energy of the particle, the total Bloch wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{II}(z)`$ is energy dependant via the coefficients $`\overline{c}_1`$ and $`\overline{c}_2`$.

As to wave-functions $`\phi _1(z)`$ and $`\phi _2(z)`$ of well-type region, we will use the second Tricomi expansion for them,

$$e^{x/2}\mathrm{\Phi }(a,\sigma +1;x)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\sigma +1)\left(\varkappa x\right)^{\sigma /2}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}A_n(\varkappa ,\lambda )\frac{\sigma +1}{2}\left(\frac{x}{4\varkappa }\right)^{n/2}J_{\sigma +n}(2\sqrt{\varkappa x}),$$
(23)
where $`\varkappa =\frac{\left(1+\sigma \right)}{2}a,`$ $`A_0(\varkappa ,\lambda )=1,`$ $`A_1(\varkappa ,\lambda )=0,\mathrm{},`$ and will restrict ourselves with the first member of expansion, which corresponds to sufficiently deep potentials ($`\varkappa 1`$). The respective Bessel functions are expressed by elementary trigonometric functions and as a consequence

$$\phi _1(z)=\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{E}z),\text{ }\phi _2(z)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{E}}\mathrm{sin}(\sqrt{E}z).$$
(24)
All the coefficients and dispersion relation $`\left((\text{11})\text{ or }(\text{12})\right)`$ also undergo sufficient changes. The dispersion relation, for example, takes the form

$$\mathrm{cos}(2\pi P)=\frac{\pi /4}{\mathrm{sin}(\pi /4)}\left\{\begin{array}{c}2u[J_{1/4}(u)J_{3/4}(u)J_{1/4}(u)J_{3/4}(u)]\mathrm{cos}(\pi \sqrt{E})J_{1/4}(u)\times \\ J_{1/4}(u)\frac{\pi }{2}\sqrt{E}\mathrm{sin}(\pi \sqrt{E})4u^2J_{3/4}(u)J_{3/4}(u)\frac{2}{\pi \sqrt{E}}\mathrm{sin}(\pi \sqrt{E})\end{array}\right\},$$
(25)
where $`u=\pi ^2\sqrt{\chi }/8.`$

## III Results of numerical calculations

To display the sought dependance, that is the behavior of Bloch wave functions due to changing of the energy in limits of a single (defined) band, we proceed from the above mentioned near-top approximation. With the help of computer simulations we first determined the depth of potential $`V`$, so that the last allowed inner-potential band would be found immediately near the tops of periodic potential (for fig.(2), with $`V=1.4494,`$the energy of mentioned band lays in limits $`E_{\mathrm{min}}=`$ $`0.3947,`$ $`E_{\mathrm{max}}=1.4494,`$and when $`V=18.65`$, in limits $`E_{\mathrm{min}}=13,64,`$ $`E_{\mathrm{max}}=18,65`$). Then with the help of formulas (6) and (10), with linearly independent solutions (7), (8) and (24), coefficients (16), (17) or (18), (19), dispersion relation (25) and normalizing condition (14), we computed the sought values of $`\left|\mathrm{\Psi }_I(z)\right|^2`$ and $`\left|\mathrm{\Psi }_{II}(z)\right|^2`$ as a function of coordinate $`z`$ along one spacial period. Repeating these calculations for all the energy values of the band, we obtain a (continuous) sequence of curves, the juxtaposition of which along the energy lines gives us the seeking behavior.

In Figs. 2a and 2b we present the results of such calculations for two different depths of potential; one (Fig.2a) for a potential depth, containing two energy bands, and the other one (Fig.2b) containing four energy bands. So, Fig. 2a illustrates the energy-space distribution of Bloch states in case of relatively shallow potential. Fig. 2b illustrates the same kind distribution for relatively deep potential. Left half of the face axis ($`z`$) corresponds to the well-type region of the potential, and the right half - to the barrier-type region. The energy axis is, as is seen, directed from the reader (energy grows from face to back).

As anomalous one is regarded the behavior of wave function in right-half side(s) of the figure(s), that is the dynamics of Bloch functions in the barrier-type regions (see Fig.1) as a function of energy. Obviously is seen that the moving along the energy axis from the back face to the front face, which physically means getting deeper into potential, does not decrease but, quite the contrary, increases the modulo square of the wave function. That merely means that the probability of the particle to be found deeper under the potential barrier (staying in the limits of a band) is greater than the probability to be found at smaller depths! This kind of behavior is in contrary to the regularity for the case of deepening into the periodic potential over various energy bands, or for the case of a single potential barrier. $`That`$ $`is`$ $`why`$ $`we`$ $`call`$ $`the`$ $`behavior`$ $`anomalous`$.

To avoid possible misunderstanding of the mentioned regularity it will be noted that there is not any strangeness or abnormality in the fact, that the wave function in barrier-type (right) space region is essentially greater in average than in well-type (left) space region; it is simply the echo of overbarrier reflecting, when velocity of the particle decreases and the wave function (probability of being) respectively increases, in ”underbarrier” states.

The next question that is of interest, is how does the rate of anomalous rising depend on the location of the band relative to the height of periodic potential. For this kind of calculations the near-top energy approximation, of course, is not applicable and we had to proceed from the precise formulas. A detailed analysis of the regularities obtained for Bloch state and comparison with single-barrier case we will give in another publication. We would like only to note that while moving away from near-top energies as inside as outside the periodic potential, the rate (scaled in energy units) of anomalous growth decreases.

Finally we note that we carried out the anomalous behavior also for the Kronig-Penny’s potential, but for that case the anomaly is much weaker, than for the case of biparabolic potential (see fig.(3)). It is easy to understand since the single barrier transparency in high energy region, and hence the effectivity of matter-wave interference is bigger for biparabolic-form potential than for rectangular-form one.

This work was supported by ISTC Grant A - 215 - 99.


format: text

text:
# Contents

## 1 Summary of the Fibre Bundle Formulation of Non- and Relativistic Quantum Mechanics

### 1.1 Bundle Quantum Mechanics

The mathematical basis for the reformulation of non-relativistic quantum mechanics in terms of fibre bundles is given by Schrödinger’s equation,

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\mathrm{d}\psi (t)}{\mathrm{d}t}=(t)\psi (t);$$

$`\psi `$ is the system’s state vector in a suitable Hilbert space $``$ and $``$ is its Hamiltonian.

In the bundle description, one has a Hilbert bundle given by $`(F,\pi ,)`$, where the total space is $`F`$, the projection is $`\pi `$, the base manifold is $``$ and a typical fibre, $``$, which is isomorphic to $`F_x=\pi ^1(x),x`$. Thus, $`l_x:F_x,x`$, isomorphisms. A state vector, $`(\psi )`$, and the Hamiltonian, $`()`$, are represented respectively by a state section along paths, $`\mathrm{\Psi }:\gamma \mathrm{\Psi }_\gamma `$, and a bundle Hamiltonian (morphisms along paths) $`:\gamma _\gamma `$, given by:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_\gamma `$ $`:t\mathrm{\Psi }_\gamma (t)=l_{\gamma (t)}^1(\psi (t));`$
$`_\gamma `$ $`:t_\gamma (t)=l_{\gamma (t)}^1(t)l_{\gamma (t)};`$
where $`\gamma :I`$, $`I`$ is the world-line for some observer. The bundle evolution operator is given by,

$`U_\gamma (t,s)`$ $`=l_{\gamma (t)}^1𝒰(t,s)l_{\gamma (s)}^1:F_{\gamma (s)}F_{\gamma (t)}`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_\gamma (t)`$ $`=U_\gamma (t,s)\mathrm{\Psi }_\gamma (s).`$
Therefore, in order to write down the bundle Schrödinger equation, $`(D\mathrm{\Psi }=0)`$, a derivation along paths, $`(D)`$, corresponding to $`U`$ is needed,

$$D:\text{PLift}^1(F,\pi ,)\text{PLift}^0(F,\pi ,);$$

where $`\text{PLift}^k(F,\pi ,)=\{\lambda \text{lifting}:\lambda \text{C}^k\}`$, is the set of liftings from $``$ to $`F`$, and,

$`\lambda `$ $`:\gamma \lambda _\gamma ,\lambda \text{PLift}^1(F,\pi ,);`$
$`D_s^\gamma (\lambda )`$ $`=\underset{ϵ0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{U_\gamma (s,s+ϵ)\lambda _\gamma (s+ϵ)\lambda _\gamma (s)}{ϵ}}`$ (1)
where
$`D_s^\gamma (\lambda )`$ $`=\left[(D\lambda )(\gamma )\right](s)=(D\lambda )_\gamma (s);`$
and, in local coords,
$`D_s^\gamma (\lambda )`$ $`=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\lambda _\gamma ^a(s)}{\mathrm{d}s}}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_b^a(s;\gamma )\lambda _\gamma ^b(s)\right)e_a(\gamma (s));`$ (2)
where $`\{e_a(\gamma (x))\},sI`$ is a basis in $`F_{\gamma (s)}`$. Thus, one can clearly see what is happening with this structure, namely the bundle evolution transport is giving origin to the linear connection by means of:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a^b(s;\gamma )`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\left(U_\gamma (s,t)\right)_a^b}{t}}|_{s=t}={\displaystyle \frac{\left(U_\gamma (t,s)\right)_a^b}{t}}|_{t=s};`$
$`U_\gamma (t,s)e_a(\gamma (s))`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{b}{}}\left(U_\gamma (s,t)\right)_a^be_b(\gamma (t));`$
are the local components of $`U_\gamma `$ in $`\{e_a\}`$.

In this manner, there is a bijective correspondence between $`D`$ and the bundle Hamiltonian,

$`𝚪_\gamma (t)`$ $`=\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }_a^b(s;\gamma )\right]={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}𝐇_\gamma (t);`$
$`𝐇_\gamma (t)`$ $`=i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐔_\gamma (t,t_0)}{t}}𝐔_\gamma ^1(t,t_0)={\displaystyle \frac{𝐔_\gamma (t,t_0)}{t}}𝐔_\gamma (t_0,t);`$
where $`𝐇_\gamma `$ is the matrix-bundle Hamiltonian.

### 1.2 Bundle Relativistic Quantum Mechanics

#### 1.2.1 Time-dependent Approach

The framework developed so far can be generalized to relativistic quantum theories in a very straightforward way. However, in doing so, it is seen that time plays a privileged role (thus, leaving the relativistic covariance implicit). Proceeding in such a manner, it is found that,

$`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{t}}`$ $`={}_{}{}^{D}\psi ;`$ (3)
$`\psi `$ $`=(\psi _1,\psi _2,\psi _3,\psi _4)^𝖳;`$
where $`{}_{}{}^{D}`$ is the Dirac Hamiltonian (Hermitian), in the space $``$ of state spinors $`\psi `$. Once (3) is a first-order differential equation, a *\[Dirac\] evolution operator*, $`({}_{}{}^{D}𝒰)`$, can be introduced. It is a $`4\times 4`$-integral matrix operator uniquely defined by the initial-value problem,

$`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{t}}{}_{}{}^{D}𝒰(t,t_0)`$ $`={}_{}{}^{D}{}_{}{}^{D}𝒰(t,t_0)`$
$`{}_{}{}^{D}𝒰(t_0,t_0)`$ $`=\mathrm{𝟙}_{}.`$
Thus, the formalism developed earlier can be applied to Dirac particles. The spinor lifting of paths has to be introduced and the *Dirac evolution transport* \[along a path, $`\gamma `$\] is given by,

$${}_{}{}^{D}U(t,s)=l_{\gamma (t)}^1{}_{}{}^{D}𝒰(t,s)l_{\gamma (s)},s,tI.$$

The *bundle Dirac equation* is given by (see (1)),

$${}_{}{}^{D}D_{t}^{\gamma }\mathrm{\Psi }_\gamma =0.$$

##### Klein-Gordon Equation

The spinless, scalar wavefunction $`\varphi \text{C}^k,k2`$, over spacetime, satisfies the Klein-Gordon equation if (particle of mass $`m`$, electric charge $`e`$ and in an external electromagnetic field given by $`A_\mu =(\phi ,\stackrel{}{A})`$),

$$\left[\left(i\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}e\phi \right)^2c^2\left(\stackrel{}{p}\frac{e}{c}\stackrel{}{A}\right)^2\right]\varphi =m^2c^4\varphi .$$

In order to solve this, a trick can be used. Just let $`\psi =(\varphi +\frac{i\mathrm{}}{mc^2}\frac{\varphi }{t},\varphi \frac{i\mathrm{}}{mc^2}\frac{\varphi }{t})^𝖳`$. This is a particular good choice if one is interested in the non-relativistic limit. After some first-order (Schrödinger-type) representation of the Klein-Gordon equation is chosen, the bundle formalism can be applied to spinless particles.

Thus, the goal is to describe the given equation of motion in terms of some Schrödinger-type operator and then apply the bundle formalism *mutatis mutandis*.

#### 1.2.2 Covariant Approach

Now, it will be developed an appropriate covariant bundle description of relativistic quantum mechanics. The difference between the time-dependent and the covariant formalism is analogous to the one between the Hamiltonian and the Lagrangian approaches to relativistic wave equations.

##### Dirac Equation

The covariant Dirac equation (for a spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$, mass $`m`$ and charge $`e`$ particle, in an external electromagnetic field $`A_\mu `$) is given by,

$`(i\mathrm{}\text{/}D`$ $`mc\mathbb{\hspace{0.17em}1}_{4\times 4})\psi =0;`$
$`\text{/}D`$ $`=\gamma ^\mu D_\mu ;`$
$`D_\mu `$ $`=_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{e}{i\mathrm{}c}}A_\mu .`$
Since it is a first-order differential equation, it admits an *evolution operator* $`𝒰`$, whose job is to connect different values at different spacetime points. Thus, for $`x_1,x_2M_0`$, ($`M_0`$ being the Minkowski spacetime),

$$\psi (x_2)=𝒰(x_2,x_1)\psi (x_1);$$

where $`𝒰(x_2,x_1)`$ is a $`4\times 4`$-matrix operator, defined as the unique solution to the initial-value problem:

$`(i\mathrm{}\text{/}Dm`$ $`c\mathbb{\hspace{0.17em}1}_{4\times 4})𝒰(x,x_0)=0;`$
$`𝒰(x_0,x_0)`$ $`=\mathrm{𝟙}_{},x,x_0M_0;`$
where $``$ is the space of 4-spinors.

Assume that $`(F,\pi ,)`$ is a vector bundle with total space $`F`$, projection $`\pi :F`$, fibre $``$ and isomorphic fibres $`F_x=\pi ^1(x),x`$. Then, there exists linear isomorphisms $`l_x:F_x`$ — which are assumed to be diffeomorphisms — so that $`F_x=l_x^1()`$ are 4-dim vector spaces.

A $`\text{C}^1`$ section222$`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is simply a *section* at this time, as opposed to the previous two cases, in which it was a *section along paths*. This corresponds to the fact that quantum objects do *not* have trajectories in a classical sense. is assigned to a state spinor, $`\psi `$, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Psi }\text{Sec}^1(F,\pi ,)`$, in the following manner:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(x)=l_x^1\left(\psi (x)\right)F_x=\pi ^1(x),x.$$

Thus, it follows that:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(x_2)`$ $`=U(x_2,x_1)\mathrm{\Psi }(x_1),x_1,x_2;`$
$`U(y,x)`$ $`=l_y^1𝒰(y,x)l_x:F_xF_y;x,y;`$
$`\underset{\begin{array}{c}4\times 4\text{ matrix}\\ \text{operator}\end{array}}{\underset{}{𝒰(x_3,x_1)}}`$ $`=𝒰(x_3,x_2)𝒰(x_2,x_1),x_1,x_2,x_3;`$
$`U(x_3,x_1)`$ $`=U(x_3,x_2)U(x_2,x_1),x_1,x_2,x_3;`$
$`U(x,x)`$ $`=\mathrm{𝟙}_{F_x},x.`$
The map $`U:(y,x)U(y,x)`$ — called the *Dirac evolution transport* — is a *linear transport along the identity map*, $`(\mathrm{𝟙}_{})`$, of $``$ in the bundle $`(F,\pi ,)`$. Thus, it is not difficult to see that ,

$`𝒟_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=0,\mu =0,1,2,3;`$
$`𝒟_\mu `$ $`=𝒟_{x^\mu }^\mathrm{𝟙}_{}.`$
These are called *Bundle Dirac Equations*.

At this point, local basis could be introduced and a local view of the above could be written down. However, from this knowledge, what will be of future interest, will come from the facts,

$`G^\mu `$ $`=l_x^1\gamma ^\mu l_x;`$
$`\{G^\mu ,G^\nu \}`$ $`=2\eta ^{\mu \nu }\mathbb{\hspace{0.17em}1}_{};`$ (4)
where $`\eta ^{\mu \nu }`$ is the Minkowski metric tensor, $`[\eta ^{\mu \nu }]=\mathrm{diag}(+1,1,1,1)`$. This last equation, (4), is the bundle generalization of (6). It is clear that this expression can be put in terms of local coordinates, in which case it would reduce to (in the equation that follows, boldface denotes the matrix — i.e., the expression in local coordinates — of the operator denoted by the same (kernel) symbol),

$$\{𝐆^\mu ,𝐆^\nu \}=2\eta ^{\mu \nu }\mathbb{\hspace{0.17em}1}_{4\times 4};$$
(5)
where $`\eta ^{\mu \nu }`$ is the Minkowski metric tensor and $`\mathrm{𝟙}_{4\times 4}=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,1)`$ is the unit matrix in 4-dim333The generalization to an arbitrary number of dimension is quite clear and straightforward from the equations given.. Thus, (5) is the local expression of (4) and a generalization of (6).

## 2 Spin Manifolds & Bundles

It is quite clear how one goes about defining spinors for Minkowski’s \[flat\] spacetime. The concern in question at this point is how one would do the same for an arbitrary \[curved\] manifold . In order to do so, let’s consider that the spacetime manifold (which is being assumed space- and time-orientable), $``$, can be patched $`𝒫=\{U_1,U_2,\mathrm{}\}`$, and that $`U_i𝒫,(i=1,2,\mathrm{}),𝒱=\{e_{U_1},e_{U_2},\mathrm{}\}`$:

$$𝐞_\mu ^U,𝐞_\nu ^U=\eta _{\mu \nu },$$
(6)
where $`𝒱`$ is also known as the “vierbein” and $`\eta _{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(1,+1,+1,+1)`$. If it is possible to find Lorentz’s matrices, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)Sl(2,)`$, (as opposed to its Minkowski’s counterpart, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, which did not depend on any specific spacetime point) that will work as \[continuous\] transition functions for the vierbein above, then it is said that the structure group of the tangent bundle $``$ was *lifted* from the Lorentz group to the group $`Sl(2,)`$ and that $``$ has a spin structure. The point of having a *spin structure* is that one can decide — upon transportation of any frame around a closed path, $`C`$, in $``$ — whether the frame has made an even or odd number of rotations. The physical consequence would be the following: Assume that $``$ has a spin structure (for, otherwise, the Dirac equation cannot be considered). Say, for example, that $`=M_0`$ is Minkowski’s spacetime. Thus, the Dirac spinors defined over $`M_0`$ will be cross sections of a bundle over $`M_0`$ associated to the tangent bundle through the representation of $`Sl(2,)`$ via $`Gl(4,)`$ 444This representation is, namely, given by $`\rho :Sl(2,)Gl(4,)`$, $`\rho (A)=\mathrm{diag}(A,(A^{^{}})^1)`$.. Thus, these spinors have the property that a complete $`\left[^3\right]`$ rotation will take them to their negative. The *obstruction* to having a spin structure is measured by the cohomology groups of $``$. For example, a spin structure exists if $`H_2(,_2)`$ vanishes, where $`H_2(,_2)`$ is the second homology group with $`_2`$ coefficients. Thus, if $``$ does have a spin structure, the Lorentz structure group can be replaced by $`Sl(2,)`$; the fiber for the tangent bundle of $``$ is still $`^4`$. If the $`c_{UV}`$ are the Lorentzian transition functions for the tangent bundle, $`c_{UV}^{}`$ shall be its $`Sl(2,)`$ counterpart. It is, then, constructed the *new*, 4-component, Dirac Spinor Bundle, $`\text{S}=\text{S}()`$, whose fiber is $`^4`$ and transition functions are

$`\rho _{UV}`$ $`:UVGl(4,)`$
$`c_{UV}^{}(x)\left[\begin{array}{cc}c_{UV}^{}(x)& 0\\ 0& \left(c_{}^{}{}_{UV}{}^{^{}}(x)\right)^1\end{array}\right].`$
This Dirac spinor bundle, (S), is simply the *vector bundle associated to the $`Sl(2,)`$ tangent bundle via the representation $`\rho `$.* This is the bundle whose sections, $`\psi `$, will serve as wave “functions” on $``$. The only ingredient missing, at this point, is a spin connection in $`\text{S}()`$. The *spin connection* in $`\text{S}()`$ is given by,

$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\omega ^{\mu \nu }\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu ;`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\omega _{\mu \nu }[\gamma ^\mu ,\gamma ^\nu ];`$
where $`\omega =(\omega _{\mu \nu })`$ is the Levi-Civita connection for the pseudo-Riemannian manifold, $``$, $`\gamma _\mu `$ are Dirac’s $`\gamma `$-matrices and it was used that $`\omega _{\mu \nu }=\omega _{\nu \mu }`$. Thus, the *covariant derivative* in the spinor bundle and the *curved* Dirac operator on $`\psi `$ are, respectively, given by:

$`_t\psi `$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{d\psi }{dt}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\omega _{\mu \nu }\left({\displaystyle \frac{dx}{dt}}\right)\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu \psi ;`$
$`\text{/}D\psi `$ $`=\text{/}\psi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\omega _{\rho \nu }^\mu \gamma ^\rho \gamma _\mu \gamma ^\nu \psi .`$
## 3 Geometric Calculus and the Ordering Problem in Quantum Mechanics

Given the motivation proposed by , one can use the Geometric Calculus in order to prevent the ordering problem that haunts quantum mechanics. Let’s make a quick overview of the method. Given non-commuting numbers, $`\gamma _\mu \text{C}_{3,1}()\text{M}_4()`$, (where $`\text{C}_{3,1}()`$ is a real Clifford Algebra555The reader should be aware of the adopted notation, where, for a metric $`g`$, its signature is given by $`p`$ plus and $`q`$ minus signs, with $`p+q=n`$. The structure of the Clifford Algebra can only depend on $`p`$ and $`q`$, thus it is denoted $`\text{C}_{p,q}(𝕂)`$, where $`𝕂`$ is a field (usually taken to be either $``$ or $``$). Also, it is a well-known fact that, $`dim\left(\text{C}_{p,q}(𝕂)\right)=2^n`$. and $`\text{M}_4()`$ is the space of $`4\times 4`$ real matrices) it is known that

$$\{\gamma _\mu ,\gamma _\nu \}=\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu +\gamma _\nu \gamma _\mu =2g_{\mu \nu }.$$
(7)
(It should be noted that $`\text{C}_{2,0}()\text{C}_{1,1}()\text{M}_2()`$. Thus, one can choose to work either with a 4- or a 2-spinor, depending only on the choice of the Clifford Algebra desired666This is a subtle point for Quantum Mechanics, given that, once pure spinors are not part of that theory, the type \[of spinor\] that one wants to introduce in the theory is completely arbitrary..)

Thus, one can introduce the expansion of an arbitrary vector and the dual basis as follows777The reader should note that the common “slash”-notation is not being used here. This should not be a source of \[future\] confusion.:

$`\underset{¯}{v}`$ $`=\underset{¯}{v}^\mu \gamma _\mu ;`$
$`\{\gamma ^\mu ,\gamma ^\nu \}`$ $`=g^{\mu \nu };`$
$`\gamma ^\mu `$ $`=g^{\mu \nu }\gamma _\nu .`$
In the same fashion ,

$``$ $`\gamma ^\mu _\mu ;`$
$`_\mu \gamma _\nu `$ $`=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\alpha \gamma _\alpha ;`$
$`_\mu \gamma ^\nu `$ $`=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \alpha }^\nu \gamma ^\alpha ;`$
$`\underset{¯}{v}`$ $`=\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu D_\mu \underset{¯}{v}_\nu ;`$
$`\psi `$ $`=\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu D_\mu D_\nu \psi ;`$
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\alpha `$ is the *connection*, $`\psi 𝕂`$ is a scalar and $`D_\mu =(_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\alpha )`$ is the *covariant* derivative. If the connection is symmetric (vanishing torsion), then

$$\psi =D_\mu D^\mu \psi ;$$
(8)
which is just D’Alembert’s operator in curved spacetime.

Thus, one has that  ($`\mathrm{}=1`$),

$$𝔭i=i\gamma ^\mu _\mu ,$$
(9)
which is Hermitian, $`(𝔭=𝔭^{^{}})`$, and whose expectation value, $`(𝔭)`$, follows a *geodesic* trajectory in our curved spacetime.

## 4 Putting it all together

Basically, one wants to generalize eqs (8) and (9) to the bundle formalism previously formulated. In order to do so, let’s remember that ($`\mathrm{}=1`$, and bringing the “slash” notation back):

Bundle results:
$`G^\mu `$ $`=l_x^1\gamma ^\mu l_x;`$
$`𝔡_\mu `$ $`=l_x^1_\mu l_x;`$
$`/𝔡`$ $`=G^\mu (x)𝔡_\mu ;`$
$`/𝔡`$ $`=l_x^1\text{/}l_x.`$
Thus, the bundle version is given by:
$`𝔭`$ $`=i/𝔡=l_x^1(i\text{/})l_x;`$
or, in local coords (boldface being matrix-notation, see (4) and (5)):
$`𝐩`$ $`=i𝐆^\mu _\mu .`$
This works for (non-relativistic) Quantum Mechanics and for Relativistic Quantum Mechanics.

When dealing with Quantum Field Theories, somethings have to be said before conclusions are drawn. Let’s start with a quick overview of the relevant facts.

In the functional \[Schrödinger’s\] representation for a free scalar QFT, one has that:

$`S`$ $`={\displaystyle d^4x}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \left(^\mu \phi _\mu \phi m^2\phi ^2\right)d^4x};`$
where, the conjugate field momentum (note the non-covariant formalism) is:
$`\pi (x)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{}{(_t\phi )}}=\dot{\phi }(x);`$
and, the Hamiltonian is:
$`H`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \left(\pi ^2+\left|\phi \right|^2+m^2\phi ^2\right)d^3x}.`$
The equal-time commutation relations are given by,
$`[\phi (\stackrel{}{x},t),\pi (\stackrel{}{y},t)]`$ $`=i\delta (\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y});`$
$`[\phi (\stackrel{}{x},t),\phi (\stackrel{}{y},t)]`$ $`=0=[\pi (\stackrel{}{x},t),\pi (\stackrel{}{y},t)];`$
In the coordinate representation, with a basis for the Fock space, where $`\phi (\stackrel{}{x})`$ is (now) time independent and diagonal (note that $`\varphi (\stackrel{}{x})`$ is just an ordinary scalar function), one has that:
$`\phi (\stackrel{}{x})|\varphi `$ $`=\varphi (\stackrel{}{x})|\varphi ;`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }[\varphi ]`$ $`=\varphi |\mathrm{\Psi };`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi (\stackrel{}{x})}}\varphi (\stackrel{}{y})`$ $`=\delta (\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y})`$
$`[{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi (\stackrel{}{x})}},\varphi (\stackrel{}{y})]`$ $`=\delta (\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}).`$
Thus, the functional representation of the equal-time commutators turns out to be:
$`\pi (\stackrel{}{x})`$ $`=i{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi (\stackrel{}{x})}};`$
$`\varphi ^{}\left|\pi (\stackrel{}{x})\right|\varphi `$ $`=i{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi (\stackrel{}{x})}}\delta [\varphi ^{}\varphi ];`$
and, the momentum operator, $`P_i`$, which generates spatial displacements, is:
$`[P_j,\phi (\stackrel{}{x},t)]`$ $`=i{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^j}}\phi (\stackrel{}{x},t);`$
$`P_j`$ $`={\displaystyle \left(\phi (x)_j\pi (x)\right)d^3x};`$
$`P_j`$ $`=i{\displaystyle \left(\varphi (\stackrel{}{x})_j\frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi (\stackrel{}{x})}\right)d^3x};`$
thus, using (9), one has that:
$`𝔓`$ $`=\gamma ^jP_j.`$
On the other hand, in the momentum representation, $`\pi (x)`$ is diagonal and time independent, which gives:
$`\pi (\stackrel{}{x})|\varpi `$ $`=\varpi (\stackrel{}{x})|\varpi ;`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }[\varpi ]`$ $`=\varpi |\mathrm{\Psi };`$
$`\phi (\stackrel{}{x})`$ $`=i{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \varpi (\stackrel{}{x})}};`$
$`E\mathrm{\Psi }[\varpi ]`$ $`=\underset{=H}{\underset{}{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \left(\frac{\delta }{\delta \varpi (\stackrel{}{x})}\left(^2+m^2\right)\frac{\delta }{\delta \varpi (\stackrel{}{x})}+\varpi ^2(\stackrel{}{x})\right)d^3x}}}\mathrm{\Psi }[\varpi ].`$
Let us introduce a *functional* version of the Fourier transform given by:
$`\mathrm{\Psi }[\varpi ]`$ $`={\displaystyle \mathrm{\Psi }[\varphi ]e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle \varpi (\stackrel{}{x})\varphi (\stackrel{}{x})d^3x}}𝒟\varphi }.`$
Thus, for a free spinor QFT, analogous relations are valid:
$`H`$ $`={\displaystyle \mathrm{\Psi }^{^{}}(x)\left(i\gamma ^\mu _\mu +m\right)\mathrm{\Psi }(x)d^3x};`$
$`\{\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha (\stackrel{}{x},t),\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta ^{^{}}(\stackrel{}{y},t)\}`$ $`=\delta _{\alpha \beta }\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y});`$
$`\{\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha (\stackrel{}{x},t),\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta (\stackrel{}{y},t)\}`$ $`=0=\{\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^{^{}}(\stackrel{}{x},t),\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta ^{^{}}(\stackrel{}{y},t)\};`$
and in the coordinate representation,
$`\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{x})|\psi `$ $`=\psi (\stackrel{}{x})|\psi ;`$
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{x})`$ is an anticommuting field, thus $`\psi (\stackrel{}{x})`$ must be a spinor of Grassmann functions $`\psi _\alpha ^2(\stackrel{}{x})=0`$, which leads us to:
$`\mathrm{\Phi }[\psi ]`$ $`=\psi |\mathrm{\Phi };`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta ^{^{}}(\stackrel{}{x})`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \psi _\beta (\stackrel{}{x})}};`$
$`E\mathrm{\Phi }[\psi ]`$ $`=\underset{=H}{\underset{}{{\displaystyle \left(\frac{\delta }{\delta \psi (\stackrel{}{x})}(i\gamma ^\mu _\mu +m)\psi (\stackrel{}{x})\right)d^3x}}}\mathrm{\Phi }[\psi ];`$
$`𝔈`$ $`=H\gamma ^0.`$
Thus, from all of the above, it is not difficult to see that, a four “spin-vector” can be constructed out of:

$`𝔈`$ $`=H\gamma ^0;`$
$`𝔓`$ $`=P_j\gamma ^j;`$
$`𝒫`$ $`=(𝔈,𝔓)=(H\gamma ^0,P_j\gamma ^j).`$
In a covariant formulation (the conserved quantity being the energy-momentum tensor), one would have that:
$`T^{\mu \nu }`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{}{\left(_\nu \phi _a\right)}}^\mu \phi _ag^{\mu \nu }.`$
$`\left(T^{\mu \nu }\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu \right)`$ $`:\text{invariant quantity};`$
thus, using the original notation:
$`𝒯^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=l_x^1T^{\mu \nu }l_x;`$
$`𝔗`$ $`=𝐆_\mu 𝒯^{\mu \nu }𝐆_\nu =l_x^1\left(T^{\mu \nu }\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu \right)l_x;`$
The reader should note that, the properties described in  will easily generalize to the above cases. This leads us to the following thought.

###### Conjecture.

The basic description of physical quantities should be done in terms of spin-variables, such as spinors, spin-vectors and spin-tensors.

## 5 Aknowledgements

This work was partly supported by DOE grant DE-FG02-91ER40688 - Task D.


text:
# The Nature of Space Time

## 1 Introduction

All of Classical Physics and Quantum Theory, is based on the Minkowski spacetime, as for example in the case of Quantum Field Theory, or Reimannian spacetime as in the case of General Relativity. In the non relativistic theories, Newtonian spacetime, is used, which is a special case of Minkowskian spacetime. But in all these cases the common denominator is that we are dealing with a differentiable manifold.
This breaks down however in Quantum Gravity, String Theory and more recent approaches, be it at the Planck scale, or at the Compton scale. The underlying reason for this breakdown of a differentiable spacetime manifold is the Uncertainty Principle– as we go down to arbitrarily small spacetime intervals, we encounter arbitrarily large energy momenta. As Wheeler put it, ”no prediction of spacetime, therefore no meaning for spacetime is the verdict of the Quantum Principle. That object which is central to all of Classical General Relativity, the four dimensional spacetime geometry, simply does not exist, except in a classical approximation.” Before proceeding to analyse the nature of spacetime beyond the classical approximation, let us first analyse briefly the nature of classical spacetime itself.

## 2 The ”Classical” Approximation

We can get an insight into the nature of the usual spacetime by considering the well known formulation of Quantum Theory in terms of stochastic processes . This will also facilitate subsequent considerations.
In the stochastic or Nelsonian theory, we deal with a double Weiner process which leads to a complex velocity $`VıU`$. It is this complex velocity that leads to Quantum Theory from the usual diffusion theory (Cf. for details).
To see this in a simple way, let us write the usual diffusion equation as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x\mathrm{\Delta }x=\frac{h}{m}\mathrm{\Delta }t\nu \mathrm{\Delta }t$$
(1)
Equation (1) can be rewritten as the usual Quantum Mechanical relation,

$$m\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }x}{\mathrm{\Delta }t}\mathrm{\Delta }x=h=\mathrm{\Delta }p\mathrm{\Delta }x$$
(2)
We are dealing here, with phenomena within the Compton or de Broglie wavelength.
We now treat the diffusion constant $`\nu `$ to be very small, but non vanishing. That is, we consider the semi classical case. This is because, a purely classical description, does not provide any insight.
It is well known that in this situation we can use the WKB approximation. In this case the right hand side of the representation of the Nelsonian wave function,

$$\psi =\sqrt{\rho }e^{ı/\mathrm{}S}$$

goes over to, in the one dimensional case, for simplicity,

$$(p_x)^{\frac{1}{2}}e^{\frac{1}{h}}p(x)𝑑x$$

so that we have, on comparison,

$$\rho =\frac{1}{p_x}$$
(3)
$`\rho `$ being the probability density. In this case the condition $`U0`$, that is, the velocity potential becoming real, implies

$$\nu ln(\sqrt{\rho })0$$
(4)
This semi classical analysis suggests that $`\sqrt{\rho }`$ is a slowly varying function of $`x`$, infact each of the factors on the left side of (4) would be $`0(h)`$, so that the left side is $`0(h^2)`$ (which is being neglected). Then from (3) we conclude that $`p_x`$ is independent of $`x`$, or is a slowly varying function of $`x`$. The equation of continuity now gives

$$\frac{\rho }{t}+\stackrel{}{}(\rho \stackrel{}{v})=\frac{\rho }{t}=0$$

That is the probability density $`\rho `$ is independent or nearly so, not only of $`x`$, but also of $`t`$. We are thus in a stationary and homogenous scenario. This is strictly speaking, possible only in a single particle universe, or for a completely isolated particle, without any effect of the environment. Under these circumstances we have the various conservation laws and the time reversible theory, all this taken over into Quantum Mechanics as well. This is an approximation valid for small, incremental changes, as indeed is implicit in the concept of a differentiable space time manifold.
Infact the well known displacement operators of Quantum Theory which define the energy momentum operators are legitimate and further the energy and momenta are on the same footing only under this approximation.
We would now like to point out the well known close similarity between the Nelsonian formulation mentioned above (Cf.(1) and (2) and the hydrodynamical formulation for Quantum Mechanics, which also leads to identical equations on writing the wave function as above. These two approaches were reconciled by considering quantized vortices at the Compton scale (Cf.). To proceed further, we start with the Schrodinger equation

$$ı\mathrm{}\frac{\psi }{t}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}^2\psi +V\psi $$
(5)
Remembering that for momentum eigen states we have, for simplicity, for one dimension

$$\frac{\mathrm{}}{ı}\frac{}{x}\psi =p\psi $$
(6)
where $`p`$ is the momentum or $`p/m`$ is the velocity $`v`$, we take the derivative with respect to $`x`$ (or $`\stackrel{}{x}`$) of both sides of (5) to obtain, on using (6),

$$ı\mathrm{}\frac{(v\psi )}{t}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}^2(v\psi )+\frac{V}{x}\psi +Vv\psi $$
(7)
We would like to compare (7) with the well known equation for the velocity in hydrodynamics, following from the Navier-Stokes equation,

$$\rho \frac{v}{t}=p\rho \alpha Tg+\mu ^2v$$
(8)
In (8) $`v`$ is a small perturbational velocity in otherwise stationary flow between parallel plates separated by a distance $`d,p`$ is a small pressure, $`\rho `$ is the density of the fluid $`T`$ is the temperature proportional to $`Q(z)v,\mu `$ is the Navier-stokes coefficient and $`\alpha `$ is the coefficient of volume expansion with temperature. Also required would be

$$\beta \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T}{d}.$$

$`v`$ itself is given by

$$v_z=W(z)exp(\sigma t+ık_xx+ık_yy),$$
(9)
$`z`$ being the coordinate perpendicular to the fluid flow.
We can now see the parallel between equations (7) and (8). To verify the identification we would require that the dimensionless Rayleigh number

$$R=\frac{\alpha \beta gd^4}{\kappa \nu }$$

should have an analogue in (7) which is dimensionless, $`\kappa ,\nu `$ being the thermometric conductivity and viscocity.
Remembering that

$$\nu \frac{h}{m}$$

and

$$d\lambda $$

where $`\lambda `$ is the Compton wavelength in the above theory (Cf. for details) and further we have

$$\rho f(z)g=V$$
(10)
for the identification between the hydrostatic energy and the energy $`V`$ of Quantum Mechanics, it is easy using (10) and earlier relations to show that the analogue of $`R`$ is

$$(c^2/\lambda ^2)\lambda ^4(m/h)^2$$
(11)
The expression (11) indeed is dimensionless and of order $`1`$. Thus the mathematical identification is complete.
Before proceeding, let us look at the physical significance of the above considerations (Cf. for a graphic description.) Under conditions of stationery flow, when the diifference in the temperature between the two plates is negligible there is total translational symmetry, as in the case of the displacement operators of Quantum Theory. But when there is a small perturbation in the velocity (or equivalently the temperature difference), then beyond a critical value the stationarity and homogeneity of the fluid is disrupted, or the symmetry is broken and we have the phenomena of the formation of Benard cells, which are convective vortices and can be counted. This infact is the ”birth” of space (Cf. for a detailed description).
In the context of the above identification, the Benard cells would correspond to the formation of quantized vortices, which latter had been discussed in detail in the literature (Cf. and ). This transition would correspond to the ”formation” of spacetime. As discussed in detail in  these quantized vortices can be identified with elementary particles, in particular the electrons. Interestingly, Einstein himself considered electrons as condensates from a background electromagnetic field.
However in order to demonstrate that the above quantized vortex formation is not a mere mathematical analogy, we have to show that the critical value of the wave number $`k`$ in the expression for the velocity in the hydrodynamical flow (9) is the same as the critical value of the quantized vortex length. In terms of the dimensionless wave number $`k^{}=k/d`$, this critical value is given by

$$k_c^{}1$$

In the case of the quantized vortices at the Compton scale $`l`$, remembering that $`d`$ is identified with $`l`$ itself we have,

$$l_c^{}()k_c^{}1,$$

exactly as required.
In this connection it may be mentioned that due to fluctuations in the Zero Point Field or the Quantum vaccuum, there would be fluctuations in the metric given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }gl_P/l$$

where $`l_P`$ is the Planck length $`10^{33}cms`$ and $`l`$ is a small interval under consideration. At the same time the fluctuation in the curvature of space would be given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }Rl_P/l^3$$

Normally these fluctuations are extremely small but as discussed in detail elsewhere, this would imply that at the Compton scale of a typical elementary particle $`l10^{11}cms`$, the fluctuation in the curvature would be $`1`$. This is symptomatic of the formation of what we have termed above as quantized vortices.
Further if a typical time interval between the formation of such quantized vortices which are the analogues of the Benard cells is $`\tau `$, in this case the Compton time, then as in the theory of the Brownian Random Walk, the mean time extent would be given by

$$T\sqrt{N}\tau $$
(12)
where $`N`$ is the number of such quantized vortices or elementary particles (Cf.also ). It is quite remarkable that the equation (12) holds good for the universe itself because $`T`$ the age of the universe $`10^{17}secs`$ and $`N`$ the number of elementary particles $`10^{80},\tau `$ being the Compton time $`10^{23}secs`$. Interestingly, this nature of time would automatically make it irreversible, unlike the conventional model in which time is reversible.
It may be mentioned that an equation similar to (12) can be deduced by the same arguments for space extension also and this time we get the well known Eddington formula viz.,

$$R\sqrt{N}l$$
(13)
where $`R`$ is the radius of the universe and $`l`$ is the Compton wavelength. Further starting from (12) one can work out a whole scheme of what may be called fluctuational cosmology, in which not just the Eddington formula (13) above, but also all the other supposedly mysterious and inexplicable large number relations of Dirac and the Weinberg formula relating the mass of the pion to the Hubble Constant can be deduced theoretically. Furthermore, this cosmology predicts an ever expanding and accelerating universe, as is now recognised to be the case (Cf. for details).
Once we recognize the minimum space time extensions, then we immediately are lead to an underlying non commutative geometry given by,

$$[x,y]=0(l^2),[x,p_x]=ı\mathrm{}[1+0(l^2)],[t,E]=ı\mathrm{}[1+0(\tau ^2)$$
(14)
As was shown a long time ago, relations like (14) are Lorentz invariant. At this stage we recognise the nature of spacetime as given by (14) in contrast to the stationary and homogeneous spacetime discussed earlier. Witten has called this Fermionic spacetime as contrasted to the usual spacetime, which he terms Bosonic. Indeed one could show the origins of the Dirac equation of the electron from (14). We could also argue that (14) provides the long sought after reconciliation between electromagnetism and gravitation.
The usual differentiable spacetime geometry can be obtained from (14) if $`l^2`$ is neglected, and this is the approximation that has been implicit.

## 3 Cantorian Spacetime and Metric

Thus spacetime is a collection of such cells or elementary particles very much in the spirit of El Naschie’s Cantorian spacetime. As pointed out earlier, this spacetime emerges from a homogeneous stationary non spacetime when the symmetry is broken, through random processes. The question that comes up then is, what is the metric which we use? This has been touched upon earlier, and we will examine it again.
We first makes a few preliminary remarks. When we talk of a metric or the distance between two ”points” or ”particles”, a concept that is implicit is that of topological ”nearness” - we require an underpinning of a suitably large number of ”open” sets. Let us now abandon the absolute or background space time and consider, for simplicity, a universe (or set) that consists solely of two particles. The question of the distance between these particles (quite apart from the question of the observer) becomes meaningless. Indeed, this is so for a universe consisting of a finite number of particles. For, we could isolate any two of them, and the distance between them would have no meaning. We can intuitiively appreciate that we would infact need distances of intermediate or more generally, other points.
In earlier work, motivated by physical considerations we had considered a series of nested sets or neighbourhoods which were countable and also whose union was a complete Hausdorff space. The Urysohn Theorem was then invoked and it was shown that the space of the subsets was metrizable. The argument went something like this.
In the light of the above remarks, the concepts of open sets, connectedness and the like reenter in which case such an isolation of two points would not be possible.
More formally let us define a neighbourhood of a particle (or point or element) $`A`$ of a set of particles as a subset which contains $`A`$ and atleast one other distinct element. Now, given two particles (or points) or sets of points $`A`$ and $`B`$, let us consider a neighbourhood containing both of them, $`n(A,B)`$ say. We require a non empty set containing atleast one of $`A`$ and $`B`$ and atleast one other particle $`C`$, such that $`n(A,B)n(A,C)`$, and so on. Strictly, this ”nested” sequence should not terminate. For, if it does, then we end up with a set $`n(A,P)`$ consisting of two isolated ”particles” or points, and the ”distance” $`d(A,P)`$ is meaningless.
We now assume the following property: Given two distinct elements (or even subsets) $`A`$ and $`B`$, there is a neighbourhood $`N_{A_1}`$ such that $`A`$ belongs to $`N_{A_1}`$, $`B`$ does not belong to $`N_{A_1}`$ and also given any $`N_{A_1}`$, there exists a neighbourhood $`N_{A_{\frac{1}{2}}}`$ such that $`AN_{A_{\frac{1}{2}}}N_{A_1}`$, that is there exists an infinite topological closeness.
From here, as in the derivation of Urysohn’s lemma, we could define a mapping $`f`$ such that $`f(A)=0`$ and $`f(B)=1`$ and which takes on all intermediate values. We could now define a metric, $`d(A,B)=|f(A)f(B)|`$. We could easily verify that this satisfies the properties of a metric.
With the same motivation we will now deduce a similar result, but with different conditions. In the sequel, by a subset we will mean a proper subset, which is also non null, unless specifically mentioned to be so. We will also consider Borel sets, that is the set itself (and its subsets) has a countable covering with subsets. We then follow a pattern similar to that of a Cantor ternary set . So starting with the set $`N`$ we consider a subset $`N_1`$ which is one of the members of the covering of $`N`$ and iterate this process so that $`N_{12}`$ denotes a subset belonging to the covering of $`N_1`$ and so on.
We note that each element of $`N`$ would be contained in one of the series of subsets of a sub cover. For, if we consider the case where the element $`p`$ belongs to some $`N_{12\mathrm{}m}`$ but not to $`N_{1,2,3\mathrm{}m+1}`$, this would be impossible because the latter form a cover of the former. In any case as in the derivation of the Cantor set, we can put the above countable series of sub sets of sub covers in a one to one correspondence with suitable sub intervals of a real interval $`(a,b)`$.
Case I
If $`N_{1,2,3\mathrm{}m}`$ an element of the set $`N`$ as $`m\mathrm{}`$, that is if the set is closed, we would be establishing a one to one relationship with points on the interval $`(a,b)`$ and hence could use the metric of this latter interval, as seen earlier.
Case II
It is interesting to consider the case where in the above iterative countable process, the limit does not tend to an element of the set $`N`$, that is set $`N`$ is not closed and has what we may call singular points. We could still truncate the process at $`N_{1,2,3\mathrm{}m}`$ for some $`m>L`$ arbitrary and establish a one to one relationship between such truncated subsets and arbitrarily small intervals in $`a,b`$. We could still speak of a metric or distance between two such arbiitrarily small intervals.
This case is of interest because of recent work which describes elementary particles as, what may be called Quantum Mechanical Kerr-Newman Black Holes or vortices, where we have a length of the order of the Compton wavelength as seen in the previous section, within which spacetime as we know it breaksdown. Such cut offs as seen lead to a non commutative geometry (14) and what may be called fuzzy spaces.(We note that the centre of the vortex is a singular point). In any case, the number of particles in the universe is of the order $`10^{80}`$, which approxiimates infinity from a physicist’s point of view.
Interestingly, we usually consider two types of infinite sets - those with cardinal number $`n`$ corresponding to countable infinities, and those with cardinal number $`c`$ corresponding to a continuum, there being nothing inbetween. This is the well known but unproven Continuum Hypotheses.
What we have shown with the above process is that it is possible to concieve an intermediate possibility with a cardinal number $`n^p,p>1`$.
We also note again the similarity with El Naschie’s transfinite Cantor sets. In the above considerations three properties are important: the set must be closed i.e. it must contain all its limit points, perfect i.e. in addition each of its points must be a limit point and disconnected i.e. it contains no nonnull open intervals. Only the first was invoked in Case I.

## 4 The Generalized Uncertainity Principle

In theories of Quantum Gravity and also String Theory we encounter what may be called the Generalized Uncertainity Principle

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x\frac{\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{\Delta }p}+\alpha \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }p}{\mathrm{}}$$
(15)
This is symptomatic of the non zero spacetime extension, and indeed also follows from (14). This could be construed to imply a correction to the velocity of light as has been noted in the literature. It could also be taken to be a correction to the Einstein mass-energy formula $`0(l^2)`$ (Cf.ref. for details).
A more complete picture emerges from the following simple model of a one dimensional lattice, the points being spaced a length $`l`$ apart. In this case the energy, as is known, can be shown to be given by

$$Emc^2cos(\alpha l)$$
(16)
where $`\alpha `$ is proportional to the wave number.
A comparison with results following from (14) or (15) shows that the latter are truncated versions of (16), truncated $`0(l^2)`$.


text:
# A Simple Method of Calculating Commutators in Hamilton System with Mathematica Software

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Today scientific computations are classified into two kinds. One is pure numerical computation, the other is algebraic computation. The latter treats with symbolic computation rather than simple numerical computation, thus it holds more general applications in scientific research. Among much software to implement symbolic computation, Mathematica, developed by Wolfram Research Inc., is one of the most popular, influential and active software in academic and industrial world . It offers us powerful scientific computational facilities, algebraic computation, high-quality graphical visualization and user interfaces. Moreover, its basic system is developed in C program language, and it is easy to be transplanted into other programs and languages.

Mathematica has been extensively applied in scientific research, especially in mathematics, physics and chemistry. For instance, it has been used to solve Schöringer equation for bound states , calculate tree-level multi-particle electroweak production process , and perform numeric computation of dyadic Green’s function . But there still exist many other problems on symbolic computations to be simplified. Calculating commutators in quantum mechanics is one of such problems.

The emergence of the commutator is a fantastic event in physics . In classical mechanics there does not exist noncommutative quantity, while in quantum mechanics, there are two kinds of quantities: Q quantity and C quantity. Q quantity denotes noncommutative quantity. For example, when two quantities $`A`$, $`B`$ do not meet commutative law, i.e. $`[A,B]=ABBA0`$, we may say that $`A`$, $`B`$ are two Q quantities. Otherwise, we may say that $`A`$, $`B`$ are two C quantities. In quantum theory, especially in quantum mechanics, quantum group and statistical physics, we often have to calculate many commutators. Today the research of the commutator has initiated noncommutative algebra  and noncommutative geometry , which are all hot topics in physics.

However, in practice, to perform these symbolic calculations is a tedious and mechanical job for physicists, so it is necessary to seek a simple and effective method of calculating operators with computer. It should be noted that even though Mathematica does provide symbolic computations, it does not include calculating commutators yet. Therefore, a direct idea is to develop source codes in Mathematica to compute commutator or anti-commutator. Along this routine, scientists have developed some software packets to deal with noncommutative algebra , such as NCAlgebra  and NCComAlgebra , to perform symbolic computations. On one hand, to develop, install and use these professional packets need many skills and knowledge of computer, which might be hard work for most physicists. On the other hand, in these packets, we should set the basic commutative relations firstly, and then by using computer, we simplify these operators. The process makes it inconvenient to calculate commutator with this software. Moreover, some software is commercial and it would not be used free. Hence, if one simple way to calculate the commutator is put forward, it will bring us convenience in practical research. After all, we need a simple method. Actually, noted that Mathematica provides differential calculation, and with the relation between commutator in quantum mechanics and Poisson bracket in classical mechanics, it might be used to calculate the commutators. Based on this idea, one simple, easy new method of calculating commutators in Hamilton system is presented and its process is illustrated by one example in this article. The method does not need to develop any software packet or modify any source code in Mathematica and it executes calculations only with functions in Mathematica software itself. It should be noted that this method is very simple and it does not need other extra skills or knowledge of computer. Moreover, this method can be extended into solving more problems. In the end some defects and applications of this method are discussed. This method is expected to simplify many practical computations in further scientific research.

## 2 POISSON BRACKETS AND COMMUTATORS

Now let us recall the relation between Poisson bracket and commutator

$$\{A,B\}=\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}[A,B],$$
(1)
where $`[]`$ donates commutator, $`\{\}`$ donates Poisson bracket, $`i`$ is the imaginary number unit, and $`\mathrm{}`$ is Planck’s constant. This relation gives us the connection between the quantum mechanics and classical mechanics. Assume a Hamilton system $`H(p_i,q_i)`$, where $`p_i,q_i`$ are canonical coordinates and their conjugate momenta respectively. For two mechanical quantities $`A(p_i,q_i)`$, $`B(p_i,q_i)`$, the Poisson bracket is defined by

$$\{A,B\}=\underset{i}{}(\frac{A}{q_i}\frac{B}{p_i}\frac{A}{p_i}\frac{B}{q_i}).$$
(2)
From Eq.(1) and (2), we will obtain

$$[A,B]=i\mathrm{}\underset{i}{}(\frac{A}{q_i}\frac{B}{p_i}\frac{A}{p_i}\frac{B}{q_i}).$$
(3)
Eq.(3) provides some clues to calculate commutators. It should be noted that the left side of eq.(3) is noncommutative algebra, but the right-hand side becomes a polynomial in classical mechanics and there does not exist noncommutative algebra. i.e. eq.(3) give us a tool to change noncommutative algebra calculations into commutative algebra calculations. When we compute commutators in quantum mechanics, we firstly rewrite these commutators into Poisson brackets in classical mechanics. Then we could use the functions in Mathematica directly to calculate those Poisson brackets, and at last we rewrite the results into quantum operators and get calculating results. Because Mathematica provides powerful functions, such as Factor, Simplify, D\[f,x\] , we can effectively finish complex calculations in a few minutes. In the next section we will describe this method by computing SO(4) group in 3 dimensions Coulomb potential.

## 3 CALCULATING SO(4)GROUP IN 3 DIMENSIONS COULOMB POTENTIAL WITH MATHEMATICA

Assume a particle in Coulomb potential $`V(r)=\frac{1}{r}`$, we try to calculate the dynamical symmetry group SO(4). In 3 dimensions Coulomb potential, there exist three conserved quantities, Hamiltonian $`H`$, angular momentum $`L`$ and Runge-Lenz vector $`R=\frac{1}{2}(P\times LL\times P)e_r`$ . In order to know whether angular momentum $`L`$ and Runge-Lenz $`R`$ construct SO(4) Lie group, we should calculate the commutators $`[H,R],[R,R],[R,L],[L,L]`$. Firstly we calculate the commutator $`[R,R]`$. In fact from the symmetry, we might only calculate the commutator $`[R_x,R_y]`$, where $`R_x,R_y`$ are Runge-Lenz vector $`R`$ along $`x`$ and $`y`$ axis respectively. Generally, calculating these commutators is a tedious job, but we will show that with Mathematica it becomes a piece of cake.

First. Simplify the commutator to be calculated with the algebra relation $`P\times L+L\times P=2i\mathrm{}P`$. Then, we obtain

$$[R_x,R_y]=[(P\times Li\mathrm{}P)_xe_x,(P\times Li\mathrm{}P)_ye_y].$$
(4)
In most circumstances, we should simplify the commutators before we calculate these commutators.

Second. Using eq.(1) and eq.(4), we rewrite above commutator into Poisson bracket as follows:

$$[R_x,R_y]=i\mathrm{}\{(P\times Li\mathrm{}P)_xe_x,(P\times Li\mathrm{}P)_ye_y\},$$
(5)
here we should note the definitions $`(P\times L)_x=i\mathrm{}(l_zp_yl_yp_z)`$, $`l_x=i\mathrm{}(yp_zzp_y)`$ and $`e_x=\frac{x}{(x^2+y^2+z^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}}`$, $`e_y=\frac{y}{(x^2+y^2+z^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}}`$ etc.

Third, eq.(5) also can be rewritten into

$`[R_x,R_y]`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{i,p_i}{}}({\displaystyle \frac{}{i}}((P\times Li\mathrm{}P)_xe_x){\displaystyle \frac{}{p_i}}((P\times Li\mathrm{}P)_ye_y)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{p_i}}((P\times Li\mathrm{}P)_xe_x){\displaystyle \frac{}{i}}((P\times Li\mathrm{}P)_ye_y)),`$
where $`i=x,y,z`$; $`p_i=p_x,p_y.p_z`$. Using the function in Mathematica(see Appendix), we could directly calculate the right-hand of eq.(6) as follows

$$[R_x,R_y]=i\mathrm{}(p_yxp_xy)(P^2\frac{2}{r}).$$
(7)
Similarly, we could calculate other commutators with Mathematica.

$$[H,R_x]=0,$$
(8)
$$[L_x,R_y]=i\mathrm{}(p_xp_zx+p_yp_zyzp_x^2zp_y^2i\mathrm{}p_z\frac{z}{r}),$$
(9)
$$[L_x,L_y]=i\mathrm{}(xp_yyp_x).$$
(10)
Fourth, rewrite above results into the standard quantum mechanics operators and simplify these results. We get

$$[R_x,R_y]=2i\mathrm{}HL_z,$$
(11)
$$[H,R]=0,$$
(12)
$$[L_x,R_y]=i\mathrm{}R_z,$$
(13)
$$[L_x,L_y]=i\mathrm{}L_z.$$
(14)
Up to now we have finished calculating such tedious commutators. From above relations, we can see that the Rungle-Lenz vector $`R`$ and angular momentum $`L`$ construct the SO(4) dynamical symmetry, which is higher than geometry symmetry SO(3). This is a well-known result in quantum mechanics . What we want to do here is not to prove or check this result, but to demonstrate that our method is efficient. It should be noted that the program is very short(only 20 lines) and the running time is only half a minute (PC 300, 64MB RAM)! In contrast to calculating above commutators by hand, it is faster and more exact. The program and some expeditions are listed in Appendix and there the function Commutator3D can be used to compute any commutator in 3 dimensions Hamilton system.

## 4 DISCUSSIONS

Because the connection between the commutator and Poisson bracket only helps to calculate the Hamilton system in quantum mechanics, our method might be unsuitable for the second quantize system. However, it does provide a simple and powerful method of calculating or checking commutators on dynamics symmetry and Lie algebra in quantum mechanics and classical mechanics, especially when the Hamiltonian contains complicated potentials. In principle, this method is used to calculate any commutator in Hamilton system. We test our method in several problems, such as calculating Lie algebra or Lie group in isotropic harmonic potential , screened Coulomb potential and screened isotropic harmonic potential . All of the results have demonstrated that this method is simple, effective and robust. We expect this method could help physicists solve such problems easily. Moreover, this method is easy to be applied into other mathematical software, such as Maple, Matlab. Meanwhile our method indeed shows that for calculating most commutators in Hamilton system, Mathematica could solve these problems by itself.

Of course, it is interesting and valuable to develop these software packets  to perform symbolic calculations, because they will release us from the bondage of mechanical and tedious work, and help us conduct real scientific research. In contrast to using these software, our method seems to be simpler and easier for most physicists. Of course, this method could not take the place of these software packets and itself is only supplement to these software packets. Actually we also hope that our method could give some clues in developing noncommutative algebra software and make it more powerful.

## ACLKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Mis. Ge Hua for giving help in revising manuscript.

## APPENDIX

(\*This program is used to calculate the SO(4) group in 3D Coulomb potential V(r) = -1/r \*)
(\* Comumutator3D is a function to calculate commutators in 3 dimensions, where f and g are variables to be computed \*)
(\* pi and qi (i=1,2,3) are canonical coordinates and their conjugate momenta respectively \*)
(\*ham is Hamiltonian of system, h is Planck’s constant, l is angular momentum and r is Rungz-Lenz vector\*)
Commutator3D\[f\_, g\_\]:= i h {D\[f, q1\] D\[g, p1\]- D\[f, p1\] D\[g, q1\]+D\[f, q2\] D\[g, p2\] -D\[f, p2\] D\[g,q2\]+ D\[f, q3\] D\[g, p3\]- D\[f, p3\] D\[g, q3\] }
ham={(p1^2+p2^2+p3^2)/2}-1/Sqrt\[q1^2+q2^2+q3^2)\]
l1=q2p3-q3p2
l2=q3p1-q1p3
l3=q1p2-q2p1
r1=l3p2-l2p3-i h p1-q1/Sqrt\[q1^2+q2^2+q3^2)\]
r2=l1p3-l3p1-i h p2-q2/Sqrt\[q1^2+q2^2+q3^2)\]
r3=l2p1-l1p2-i h p3-q3/Sqrt\[q1^2+q2^2+q3^2)\]
s1=Commutator3D\[r1,r2\]
s2=Commutator3D\[r1,ham\]
s3=Commutator3D\[l1,r2\]
s4=Commutator3D\[l1,l2\]
f1=Simply\[s1\]
f2=Simply\[s2\]
f3=Simply\[s3\]
f4=Simply\[s4\]