text:
# References

Towards a covariant canonical formulation for closed topological defects without boundaries

R. Cartas-Fuentevilla
Instituto de Física, Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, Apartado postal J-48 72570, Puebla Pue., México. (rcartas@sirio.ifuap.buap.mx)

On the basis of the covariant description of the canonical formalism for quantization, we present the basic elements of the symplectic geometry for a restricted class of topological defects propagating on a curved background spacetime. We discuss the future extensions of the present results.

Running title: Towards a covariant….

I. INTRODUCTION

It is undeniable the current importance of the study of extended objects in physics, mainly in many high energy physics contexts. Such solitonic structures emerge, for example, in the context of cosmological phase transitions in the early universe, and playing a fundamental role at the Planck scale, where (super)string/M-theory drives a revolution without precedent in physics, such as to provide a quantum formulation for gravity. However, a great variety of aspects and questions are still not complete and properly understood, both at classical and quantum level, included the transition between the classical and quantum domains. This happens even for the simplest prototype for a extended object, the Dirac-Nambu-Goto model.

Within the general context of quantization, the canonical formalism is based in a Hamiltonian scheme that traditionally requires an explicit singling out of the time as evolution variable, which implies the space-time to be topologically a direct product of space and time, as opposed to the general covariance imposed by the relativity theory. However, these difficulties have been overcame by means of a generalized Hamiltonian scheme in which space and time dimensions are treated on equal footing, leading up to a canonical formalism manifestly covariant ( and references therein). This covariant formalism has been applied for the analysis of field theories such as Yang-Mills and General Relativity, originally in Ref.  by Witten et al, and more recently, incorporating the adjoint operators formalism, by ourselves in Ref. , open superstrings , the Wess-Zumino-Witten model , two-dimensional gravity models , among other ones; however, it has not been applied for the analysis of topological defects of arbitrary dimensions. That is due to several reasons: first, the procedures previously employed for field theories can not be extended directly for the natural geometrical quantities that describe the dynamics of a defect, and the translation turns out to be awkward and obscure. Additionally, within that covariant canonical formalism, one requires precisely of a covariant description of the geometry of deformations of the subject under study, which, in the case of topological defects (unlike field theories), is hardly in current development, and is yet not well understood. Attempts for overcoming such limitations include, for example, the formalism developed by Capovilla and Guven (CG) for the case of closed topological defects without boundaries , and subsequently for extended objects with edges . Hence, the purpose of the present study is to employ the CG formalism for developing those elements which allow to establish a covariant quantization scheme described above, for topological defects, particularly those governed by a higher dimensional generalization of the Dirac-Nambu-Goto action (or branes), on a curved spacetime. We shall focus our attention, in this preliminary effort, on closed defects without physical boundaries.

In the covariant canonical formalism that we attempt to apply, the knowledge of the so called covariant space phase is crucial. Therefore, in Section IV , we outline the definition of such space, and the exterior calculus associated with. Although such definitions and concepts come entirely from Ref. , they will be suitably adjusted to the treatment of topological defects. In Section V, we incorporate the (self)-adjoint operators formalism, which allows us to obtain a covariantly conserved bilinear form on the phase space, which in turns, will be associated directly with the wanted symplectic form. In Section VI, a symplectic structure with certain invariance properties is explicitly constructed on the phase space. We have no conclusions in this letter, instead we have a lot of open questions for future works, and they are discussed in Section VII. In next section, we summarize the geometry of the embedding of the brane worldsheet in a background spacetime and of their deformations given in Reference .

II. GEOMETRY OF THE EMBEDDING AND THEIR DEFORMATIONS

2.1 The embedding

The $`D`$-dimensional brane dynamics is usually given by a oriented timelike worldsheet m described by the embedding functions $`x^\mu =X^\mu (\xi ^a)`$, $`\mu =0,\mathrm{},N1`$ and $`a=0,\mathrm{},D`$, in a $`N`$-dimensional ambient spacetime M endowed with the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$. Such functions specify the coordinates of the brane, and the $`\xi ^a`$ correspond to internal coordinates on the worldsheet.

At each point of m, $`e_aX_{,a}^\mu _\mu e_a^\mu _\mu `$, generate a basis of tangent vectors to m; thus, the induced $`(D+1)`$-dimensional worldsheet metric is given by $`\gamma _{ab}=e_a^\mu e_b^\nu g_{\mu \nu }=g(e_a,e_b)`$. Furthermore, the $`(ND)`$ vector fields $`n^i`$ normal to m, are defined by

$$g(n^i,n^j)=\delta ^{ij},g(e_a,n^i)=0.$$
(1)
Tangential indices are raised and lowered by $`\gamma ^{ab}`$ and $`\gamma _{ab}`$, respectively, whereas normal vielbein indices by $`\delta ^{ij}`$ and $`\delta _{ij}`$ respectively, and this fact will be used implicitly below. The collection of vectors $`\{e_a,n^i\}`$, which can be used as a basis for the spacetime vectors, satisfies the generalized Gauss-Weingarten equation:

$$D_ae_b=\gamma _{ab}{}_{}{}^{c}e_{c}^{}K_{ab}{}_{}{}^{i}n_{i}^{},D_an_i=K_{ab}{}_{}{}^{i}e_{}^{b}+\omega _a{}_{}{}^{ij}n_{j}^{},$$

where $`D_ae_a^\mu D_\mu `$ ($`D_\mu `$ is the torsionless covariant derivative associated with $`g_{\mu \nu }`$); thus, the connection coefficients $`\gamma _{ab}^a`$ compatible with $`\gamma _{ab}`$ is given by $`\gamma _{ab}{}_{}{}^{c}=g(D_ae_b,e^c)=\gamma _{ba}^c`$, and the ith extrinsic curvature of the worldsheet by $`K_{ab}{}_{}{}^{i}=g(D_ae_b,n^i)=K_{ba}^i`$. Similarly the extrinsic twist potential of the worldsheet is defined by $`\omega _a{}_{}{}^{ij}=g(D_an^i,n^j)=\omega _a^{ji}`$. Such a potential allows us to introduce a worldsheet covariant derivative $`(\stackrel{~}{}_a)`$ defined on fields $`(\mathrm{\Phi }^i{}_{j}{}^{})`$ transforming as tensors under normal frame rotations:

$$\stackrel{~}{}_a\mathrm{\Phi }^i{}_{j}{}^{}_a\mathrm{\Phi }^i{}_{j}{}^{}\omega _a{}_{}{}^{ik}\mathrm{\Phi }_{kj}^{}\omega _{ajk}\mathrm{\Phi }^{ik},$$
(2)
where $`_a`$ is the (torsionless) covariant derivative associated with $`\gamma _{ab}`$.

2.2 Deformations of the intrinsic geometry

The physically observable measure of the deformation of the embedding m is given by the orthogonal projection of the infinitesimal spacetime variation $`\xi ^\mu \delta X^\mu =n_i^\mu \varphi ^i`$, characterized by $`ND`$ scalar fields $`\varphi ^i`$. Defining the vector field $`\delta n_i\varphi ^i`$, the displacement induced in the tangent basis $`\{e_a\}`$ along $`\delta `$ depends on $`\varphi ^i`$ and on their first derivatives:

$$D_\delta e_a=\beta _{ab}e^b+J_{ai}n^i,$$
(3)
where $`D_\delta \delta ^\mu D_\mu `$, and

$$\beta _{ab}=g(D_\delta e_a,e_b)=K_{ab}{}_{}{}^{i}\varphi _{i}^{},J_{ai}=g(D_\delta e_a,n_i)=\stackrel{~}{}_a\varphi _i;$$
(4)
similarly, the deformation in the induced metric on m is given by

$$D_\delta \gamma _{ab}=2\beta _{ab}=2K_{ab}{}_{}{}^{i}\varphi _{i}^{},D_\delta \gamma ^{ab}=2\beta ^{ab}.$$
(5)
For the case treated here, this is sufficient about the deformations of the intrinsic geometry.

2.3 Deformations of the extrinsic geometry

Introducing a covariant deformation derivative as $`\stackrel{~}{D}_\delta \mathrm{\Psi }_iD_\delta \mathrm{\Psi }_i\gamma _i{}_{}{}^{j}\mathrm{\Psi }_{i}^{}`$, where $`\gamma _{ij}=g(D_\delta n_i,n_j)=\gamma _{ij}`$, the covariant measure of the deformations of the quantities characterizing the extrinsic geometry are given by

$`D_sn_i=J_{ai}e^a+\gamma _{ij}n^j,\stackrel{~}{D}_\delta n_i=J_{ai}e^a=\left(\stackrel{~}{}_a\varphi _i\right)e^a,`$ (6)
$`\stackrel{~}{D}_\delta K_{ab}{}_{}{}^{i}=\stackrel{~}{}_a\stackrel{~}{}_b\varphi ^i+\left[K_{ac}{}_{}{}^{i}K_{}^{c}{}_{bj}{}^{}g(R(e_a,n_j)e_b,n^i)\right]\varphi ^j,`$ (7)
$`\stackrel{~}{D}_\delta \omega _a{}_{}{}^{ij}_a\gamma ^{ij}=D_\delta \omega _a{}_{}{}^{ij}\stackrel{~}{}_a\gamma ^{ij}=K_{ab}{}_{}{}^{i}\stackrel{~}{}_{}^{b}\varphi ^j+K_{ab}{}_{}{}^{j}\stackrel{~}{}_{}^{b}\varphi ^i`$
$`+g(R(n_k,e_a)n^j,n^i)\varphi ^k,`$ (8)
which depend on second derivatives of $`\varphi _i`$; the notation $`g(R(Y_1,Y_2)Y_3,Y_4)=R_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }Y_1^\nu Y_2^\mu Y_3^\alpha Y_4^\beta `$ is used, where $`R_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }`$ is the Riemann tensor of spacetime. Other useful formulae and more details can be found directly in Ref. .

III. THE DIRAC-NAMBU-GOTO ACTION AND ITS DEFORMATIONS

The simplest phenomenological theory of a topological defect is given by the most simple generally covariant action, proportional the area swept out by the worldsheet:

$$S=\sigma d^D\xi \sqrt{\gamma },$$
(9)
where $`\sigma `$ is the brane tension. If we restrict us to closed defects without physical boundaries, the corresponding equations of motion are given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }X^\mu +\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\mu \left(X^\nu \right)\gamma ^{ab}e_a^\alpha e_b^\beta =0,$$
(10)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\gamma }}_a(\sqrt{\gamma }\gamma ^{ab}_b)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\mu (X^\nu )`$ are the spacetime Christoffel symbols evaluated on m. Because all but $`ND`$ linear combinations of these equations are identically satisfied, they are entirely equivalent to the $`ND`$ equations

$$K^i=\gamma ^{ab}K_{ab}{}_{}{}^{i}=0,$$
(11)
which describe extremal surfaces. Furthermore, using Eqs. (5), (7), and (11), one can find the deformation equations of motion in terms of the scalar fields $`\varphi ^i`$ :

$`\stackrel{~}{D}_\delta K^i`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma ^{ab}\stackrel{~}{D}_\delta K_{ab}{}_{}{}^{i}K_{ab}{}_{}{}^{i}D_{\delta }^{}\gamma ^{ab}`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`\left[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\delta ^{ij}\left(M^2\right)^{ij}\right]\varphi _j=0,`$
where the d’Alembertian $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\stackrel{~}{}^a\stackrel{~}{}_a`$, and the effective mass matrix $`(M^2)^{ij}=K_{ab}{}_{}{}^{i}K_{}^{ab}{}_{}{}^{j}g(R(e_a,n^j)e^a,n^i)`$. Note that the linear operator $`^{ij}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\delta ^{ij}(M^2)^{ij}`$ takes vector fields into themselves, and the mass matrix is symmetric, $`(M^2)^{ij}=(M^2)^{ji}`$. By direct substitution of the relation $`\varphi ^i=n_\mu ^i\delta X^\mu `$ into Eq. (12), it is a straightforward matter to write down the corresponding equations for spacetime variations $`\xi ^\mu `$:

$$n_\mu ^iD^aD_a\xi ^\mu +\left(\stackrel{~}{}^an_\mu ^i\right)D_a\xi ^\mu +\left[h^{\alpha \beta }^\lambda {}_{\mu }{}^{}R_{}^{\sigma }{}_{\alpha \lambda \beta }{}^{}n_{\sigma }^{i}2\omega ^a{}_{ij}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{}_{a}^{}n_\mu ^j\right]\xi ^\mu =0,$$

where we have exploited the projection tensor $`h^{\mu \nu }\gamma ^{ab}e_a^\mu e_b^\nu =g^{\mu \nu }^{\mu \nu }`$, with $`^{\mu \nu }=n_i^\mu n^{i\nu }`$. The normal projection of previous equation on $`n_{\nu i}`$, gives finally

$$\left(\xi ^\mu \right)_\nu [_{\mu \nu }D^aD_a+\left(n_{\nu i}\stackrel{~}{}^an_\mu ^i\right)D_a+h^{\alpha \beta }^\sigma {}_{\nu }{}^{}_{}^{\lambda }{}_{\mu }{}^{}R_{\sigma \alpha \lambda \beta }^{}2\omega ^a{}_{ij}{}^{}n_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{i}\stackrel{~}{}_{a}^{}n_\mu ^j]\xi ^\mu =0;$$
(13)
similarly the linear operator $``$ is taking vector fields into themselves. As we shall see in Section 5.2, one can to find from both equations (12) and (13), a local continuity equation on the phase space.

IV. COVARIANT PHASE SPACE AND THE EXTERIOR CALCULUS

In according to Witten , in a given physical theory, the classical phase space is the space of solutions of the classical equations of motion, which corresponds to a manifestly covariant definition. The basic idea of the covariant description of the canonical formalism is to construct a symplectic structure on such a phase space, instead of choosing p’s and q’s.

In the present case, the phase space is the space of solutions of Eqs. (10) (or equivalently Eqs. (11)), and we shall call it $`Z`$. Any background quantity, such as those defined in Section 2.1, will be associated with zero-forms on $`Z`$. The deformation operator $`\delta `$ acts as an exterior derivative on $`Z`$, taking $`k`$-forms into $`(k+1)`$-forms, and it should satisfy

$$\delta ^2=0,$$
(14)
and the Leibniz rule

$$\delta \left(AB\right)=\delta AB+\left(1\right)^AA\delta B.$$
(15)
In particular, $`\delta X^\mu `$ is the exterior derivative of the zero-form $`X^\mu `$, and it will be closed:

$$\delta ^2X^\mu =0.$$
(16)
Furthermore, since $`\varphi ^i=n_\mu ^i\delta X^\mu `$, and $`n_\mu ^i`$ corresponds to a zero-forms on $`Z`$, the scalar fields $`\varphi ^i`$ are one-forms on $`Z`$, and thus are anticommutating objects: $`\varphi ^i\varphi ^j=\varphi ^j\varphi ^i`$. This property allows us to verify that, being the vector field $`\delta =n^i\varphi _i`$, thus $`\delta ^2=n^in^j\varphi _i\varphi _j`$, which vanishes because of the commutativity of the zero-forms $`n^i`$ and the anticommutativity of the $`\varphi ^i`$ on $`Z`$, in fully agreement with Eq. (14). It is important to mention, at this point, that the covariant deformation operator $`D_\delta `$ (and subsequently $`\stackrel{~}{D}_\delta `$) also works as an exterior derivative on $`Z`$, in the sense that maps $`k`$-forms into $`(k+1)`$-forms; however $`D_\delta ^2`$ does not vanish necessarily. In this manner, from Eq. (4) we can identify $`\beta _{ab}`$ and $`J_{aj}`$ as one-forms on $`Z`$, and similarly for $`\gamma _{ij}`$ in Section 2.3.

Which these preliminary, we can determine certain two-forms on $`Z`$ that will be useful for our present proposes. Considering that $`\delta \delta X^\mu _\mu `$, and $`D_\delta \delta X^\mu D_\mu `$, we can show that $`D_\delta (\delta X^\mu )`$ vanishes:

$$D_\delta \left(\delta X^\mu \right)=\delta X^\alpha D_\alpha \delta X^\mu =\delta X^\alpha \left[_\alpha \delta X^\mu +\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \lambda }^\mu \delta X^\lambda \right]=\delta ^2X^\mu +\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \lambda }^\mu \delta X^\alpha \delta X^\lambda =0,$$
(17)
where the first term vanishes in according to Eq. (16), and the second one because of the symmetry of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \lambda }^\mu `$ in the indices $`\alpha `$ and $`\lambda `$, and the anticommutativity of $`\delta X^\alpha `$ and $`\delta X^\lambda `$. Hence, Eq. (17) suggests that $`D_\delta `$ is, as well as $`\delta `$, a measure of the closeness of $`\delta X^\mu `$ on $`Z`$. Furthermore, using Eqs. (6), (17), and the Leibniz rule for $`D_\delta `$, we find that:

$$D_\delta \varphi ^i=D_\delta \left(n_\mu ^i\delta X^\mu \right)=D_\delta n_\mu ^i\delta X^\mu +n_\mu ^iD_\delta \delta X^\mu =D_\delta n_\mu ^i\left(n_j^\mu \varphi ^j\right)=\gamma ^i{}_{j}{}^{}\varphi _{}^{j},$$

which implies that

$$\stackrel{~}{D}_\delta \varphi ^i=0.$$
(18)
Although effectively $`\stackrel{~}{D}_\delta ^2`$ does not vanish, Eq. (18) suggests that $`\stackrel{~}{D}_\delta `$ is not only a covariant measure of the deformations, but also the measure of the closeness of $`\varphi ^i`$ on $`Z`$. In the CG deformation scheme, the $`\varphi ^i`$ are considered, in a conventional sense, as scalar fields “living on the worldsheet”; in the present scheme such fields can be considered as closed (in the sense of Eq. (18)) one-forms, “living on the corresponding phase space $`Z`$”. The property (18) of the $`\varphi ^i`$ will be essential for our present purposes.

V. SELF-ADJOINT OPERATORS AND A COVARIANTLY CONSERVED CURRENT ON Z

In this Section we shall construct, using the concept of self-adjoint operators, a worldsheet covariantly conserved two-form on $`Z`$.

5.1. Adjoint operators and local continuity laws

The general relationship between adjoint operators and covariantly conserved currents has been already given in previous works (see for example  and references cited therein), however we shall discuss it in this section for completeness.

If $`𝒫`$ is a linear partial differential operator which takes matrix-valued tensor fields into themselves, then, the adjoint operator of $`𝒫`$, is that operator $`𝒫^{}`$, such that

$$\mathrm{Tr}\left\{f^{\rho \sigma \mathrm{}}\left[𝒫\left(g_{\mu \nu \mathrm{}}\right)\right]_{\rho \sigma \mathrm{}}\left[𝒫^{}\left(f^{\rho \sigma \mathrm{}}\right)\right]^{\mu \nu \mathrm{}}g_{\mu \nu \mathrm{}}\right\}=_\mu 𝒥^\mu ,$$
(19)
where $`\mathrm{Tr}`$ denotes the trace and $`𝒥^\mu `$ is some vector field. From this definition, if $`𝒬`$ and $``$ are any two linear operators, one easily finds the following properties:

$$\left(𝒬\right)^{}=^{}𝒬^{},\left(𝒬+\right)^{}=𝒬^{}+^{},$$

and in the case of a function $`F`$,

$$F^{}=F,$$

which will be used implicitly below.

From Eq. (19) we can see that this definition automatically guarantees that, if $`𝒫`$ is a self-adjoint operator ($`𝒫^{}=𝒫`$), and the fields $`f`$ and $`g`$ correspond to a pair of solutions admitted by the linear system $`𝒫(f)=0=𝒫(g)`$, then we obtain the continuity law $`_\mu 𝒥^\mu =0`$, which establishes that $`𝒥^\mu `$ is a covariantly conserved current, bilinear on the fields $`f`$ and $`g`$. This fact means that for any self-adjoint homogeneous equation system, one can always to construct a conserved current. Although this result has been established assuming only tensor fields and the presence of a single equation, such a result can be extended in a direct way to equations involving spinor fields, matrix fields, and the presence of more that one field.

In the present work, the indices appearing in Eq. (19), can correspond to spacetime, internal, and/or normal indices. Furthermore, since the fields $`f`$ and $`g`$ will be identified with deformations (which correspond to one-forms on $`Z`$), the products of the form $`f𝒫(g)`$ and $`𝒫^{}(f)g`$ in Eq. (19) must be understood as exterior products on $`Z`$, and something similar for the field $`𝒥^\mu `$ in its dependence on the fields $`f`$ and $`g`$. These subjects will be clarified in the example described below.

5.2. Self-adjointness of the operators governing the deformations

In this section we shall show that the operators $`^{ij}`$ and $``$ in Eqs. (12) and (13) are indeed self-adjoint.

The case of $`^{ij}`$ is relatively simple: let $`\varphi _1^i`$ and $`\varphi _2^i`$ be two scalar fields (which will be identified as a pair of solutions of Eqs. (12), we mean a pair of one-forms on $`Z`$), then it is very easy to prove the following identity,

$$\varphi _{1i}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\varphi _2^i\varphi _{1i}\stackrel{~}{}^a\stackrel{~}{}_a\varphi _2^i\left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\varphi _{1i}\right)\varphi _2^i+_aj^a,j^a=\varphi _{1i}\stackrel{~}{}^a\varphi _2^i\left(\stackrel{~}{}^a\varphi _{1i}\right)\varphi _2^i,$$

which implies that

$$\varphi _{1i}\left[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\delta ^{ij}\left(M^2\right)^{ij}\right]\varphi _{2j}=\left[\left[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\delta ^{ji}\left(M^2\right)^{ji}\right]\varphi _{1i}\right]\varphi _{2j}+_aj^a,$$
(20)
where we have considered the symmetry of the mass matrix; such a mass term does no contribute explicitly to $`j^a`$ (although it does implicitly). Eq. (20) shows that, in according to Eq. (19), $`^{ij}`$ is self-adjoint. In this manner, if $`\varphi _{1i}`$ and $`\varphi _{2i}`$ corresponds to a pair of solutions of Eqs. (12), $`_aj^a=0`$, which implies that, at each brane worldsheet point, $`j^a`$ is a covariantly conserved two-form on $`Z`$. This bilinear product is evidently antisymmetric in $`\varphi _{1i}`$ and $`\varphi _{2i}`$; thus, we can set $`\varphi _{1i}=\varphi _{2i}=\varphi _i`$ , without loosing generality, and write simply

$$j^a=\varphi _i\stackrel{~}{}^a\varphi ^i.$$
(21)
On the other hand, for demonstrating the self-adjointness of the operator $`\xi `$ governing the deformations in Eq. (13), we need the following identities which are very easy of verifying. Let $`\xi _1^\nu `$ and $`\xi _2^\mu `$ be two spacetime vector fields, then:

$`\xi _1^\nu _{\mu \nu }D^aD_a\xi _2^\mu `$ $``$ $`_a\left[_{\mu \nu }\xi _1^\nu D^a\xi _2^\mu D^a\left(_{\mu \nu }\xi _1^\nu \right)\xi _2^\mu \right]+\left[D^aD_a\left(_{\mu \nu }\xi _1^\nu \right)\right]\xi _2^\mu ,`$
$`\xi _1^\nu n_{\nu i}\stackrel{~}{}^an_\mu ^iD_a\xi _2^\mu `$ $``$ $`_a\left[\left(n_{\nu i}\stackrel{~}{}^an_\mu ^i\right)\xi _1^\nu \xi _2^\mu \right]D_a\left[\left(n_{\nu i}\stackrel{~}{}^an_\mu ^i\right)\xi _1^\nu \right]\xi _2^\mu ;`$ (22)
furthermore, using the definition $`_{\mu \nu }n_{\mu i}n_\nu ^i`$, it is straightforward to show the following background identities:

$`D^a_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`n_{\nu i}\stackrel{~}{}^an_\mu ^i+n_\mu {}_{}{}^{i}\stackrel{~}{}_{}^{a}n_{\nu i},`$
$`D^aD_a_{\mu \nu }2D_a\left(n_{\nu i}\stackrel{~}{}^an_\mu ^i\right)`$ $`=`$ $`2\omega ^{aij}\left(n_{\nu i}\stackrel{~}{}_an_{\mu j}n_{\mu i}\stackrel{~}{}_an_{\nu j}\right).`$ (23)
In this manner, using Eqs. (22) and (23), and the explicit form of the operator $``$ in Eq. (13), one finds that

$`\xi _1^\nu \left(\xi _2^\mu \right)_\nu `$ $`=`$ $`\{_{\mu \nu }D^aD_a\xi _1^\nu +2(n_{\mu i}\stackrel{~}{}^an_\nu {}_{}{}^{i})_a\xi _1^\nu +[2\omega ^{aij}n_{\mu i}\stackrel{~}{}_an_{\nu j}+h^{\alpha \beta }^\sigma {}_{\nu }{}^{}_{}^{\lambda }{}_{\mu }{}^{}R_{\sigma \alpha \lambda \beta }^{}]\xi _1^\nu \}\xi _2^\mu `$ (24)
$`+_aj^a=\left(\xi _1^\nu \right)_\mu \xi _2^\mu +_aj^a,`$
which corresponds to Eq. (19) with $`^{}=`$, and

$$j^a_{\mu \nu }\xi _1^\nu ^a\xi _2^\mu +\left(n_{\nu i}\stackrel{~}{}^an_\mu ^i\right)\xi _1^\nu \xi _2^\mu \left[_{\mu \nu }\left(^a\xi _1^\nu \right)\xi _2^\mu +\left(n_\mu {}_{}{}^{i}\stackrel{~}{}_{}^{a}n_{\nu i}\right)\xi _1^\nu \xi _2^\mu \right].$$
(25)
Similarly, if $`\xi _1^\nu `$ and $`\xi _2^\mu `$ corresponds to a pair of solutions admitted by Eqs. (13), $`(\xi _1^\nu )_\mu =0=(\xi _2^\mu )_\nu `$, then from Eq. (24), we obtain the local continuity equation: $`_aj^a=0`$. $`j^a`$ in Eq. (25) is antisymmetric in $`\xi _1^\nu `$ and $`\xi _2^\mu `$; thus, setting $`\xi _1^\nu =\xi _2^\nu =\xi ^\nu `$, $`j^a=_{\mu \nu }\xi ^\nu ^a\xi ^\mu +(n_{\nu i}\stackrel{~}{}^an_\mu ^i)\xi ^\nu \xi ^\mu `$, which has a remarkable simplification in terms of the fields $`\varphi ^i=n_\mu ^i\xi ^\mu `$:

$`j^a`$ $`=`$ $`n_{\nu i}\xi ^\nu \left[n_\mu ^i^a\xi ^\mu +\left(^an_\mu ^i\omega ^{aij}n_{\mu j}\right)\xi ^\mu \right]`$
$`=`$ $`\varphi _i\left[n_\mu ^i^a\xi ^\mu +\left(^an_\mu ^i\right)\xi ^\mu \omega ^{aij}\varphi _j\right]`$
$`=`$ $`\varphi _i\left[^a\left(n_\mu ^i\xi ^\mu \right)\omega ^{aij}\varphi _j\right]=\varphi _i\stackrel{~}{}^a\varphi ^i,`$
in fully agreement with Eq. (21). Note that $`j^a`$, with support confined to the brane worldsheet, transforms as a scalar under normal frame rotations. In next Section we shall discuss about the closeness of this bilinear form on $`Z`$.

VI. THE SYMPLECTIC STRUCTURE ON Z

Strictly speaking, a (non-degenerate) closed two-form on $`Z`$ is called a symplectic structure; the closeness holds if the exterior derivative of such a two-form vanishes. This property is equivalent to that Poisson brackets satisfy, in the usual Hamiltonian scheme, the Jacoby identity.

Hence, let us determine the exterior derivative of the two-form $`j^a`$ previously constructed in Eq. (21). We calculate first $`\stackrel{~}{D}_\delta \stackrel{~}{}_b\varphi ^i`$; for which we can follow the calculation for obtaining Eq. (4.15) in Ref. , and to consider, of course, that in the present approach $`\stackrel{~}{D}_\delta `$ acts as an exterior derivative on $`Z`$, and, in particular, obeys the Leibniz rule (15):

$`\stackrel{~}{D}_\delta \stackrel{~}{}_b\varphi ^i`$ $`=`$ $`D_\delta \left[D_b\varphi ^i\omega _b{}_{}{}^{ij}\varphi _{j}^{}\right]\gamma ^{ij}\stackrel{~}{}_b\varphi _j`$
$`=`$ $`D_bD_\delta \varphi ^i(D_\delta \omega _b{}_{}{}^{ij})\omega _b{}_{}{}^{ij}D_{\delta }^{}\varphi _j\stackrel{~}{}_b\left(\gamma ^{ij}\varphi _j\right)+\left(\stackrel{~}{}_b\gamma ^{ij}\right)\varphi _j`$
$`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{}_b\stackrel{~}{D}_\delta \varphi ^i\left(D_\delta \omega _b{}_{}{}^{ij}\stackrel{~}{}_b\gamma ^{ij}\right)\varphi _j,`$
the first term vanishes in according to Eq. (18), whereas the second term can be rewritten using Eq. (8),

$`\stackrel{~}{D}_\delta \stackrel{~}{}_b\varphi ^i`$ $`=`$ $`\left[K_{bc}{}_{}{}^{i}J_{}^{cj}K_{bc}{}_{}{}^{j}J_{}^{ci}g(R(n_k,e_b)n^j,n^i)\varphi ^k\right]\varphi _j`$ (26)
$`=`$ $`K_{bc}{}_{}{}^{i}j_{}^{c}+\beta _{bc}J^{ci}g(R(n_k,e_b)n^j,n^i)\varphi ^k\varphi _j,`$
in the last line, we have considered that, in according to Eq. (21), $`j^a=\varphi _iJ^{ai}=J^{ai}\varphi _i`$ ($`J^{ai}`$ and $`\varphi _i`$ are one-forms), and $`K_{bc}{}_{}{}^{j}\varphi _{j}^{}=\beta _{bc}`$ (see first of Eq. (4)). Now, it is very easy to find that:

$$D_\delta j_b=\stackrel{~}{D}_\delta j_b=\stackrel{~}{D}_\delta \left(\varphi ^i\stackrel{~}{}_b\varphi _i\right)=\left(\stackrel{~}{D}_\delta \varphi ^i\right)\stackrel{~}{}_b\varphi _i\varphi ^i\stackrel{~}{D}_\delta \stackrel{~}{}_b\varphi _i,$$

where we have used again the Leibniz rule, and one more time the first term vanishes according to Eq. (18), and using Eq. (26) the second term reduces to

$$D_\delta j_b=2\beta _{bc}j^c+g(R(n_k,e_b)n_j,n_i)\varphi ^i\varphi ^k\varphi ^j.$$
(27)
Thus, considering Eq. (27), and the second of Eq. (5), one finds that

$`\delta j^a=D_\delta j^a=D_\delta \left(\gamma ^{ab}j_b\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(D_\delta \gamma ^{ab}\right)j_b+\gamma ^{ab}D_\delta j_b`$ (28)
$`=`$ $`e^{a\nu }R_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }n_k^\mu n_j^\beta n_i^\alpha \varphi ^i\varphi ^k\varphi ^j`$
$`=`$ $`e^{a\nu }R_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\xi ^\alpha \xi ^\mu \xi ^\beta .`$
However, the projection of the spacetime Riemann tensor on the right-hand side of Eq. (28) vanishes, since considering the definitions $`2D_{[\mu }D_{\nu ]}A_\alpha =R_{\mu \nu \alpha }{}_{}{}^{\rho }A_{\rho }^{}`$ and $`D_\delta \xi ^\alpha D_\alpha `$, it can be rewritten as

$$R_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\xi ^\alpha \xi ^\mu \xi ^\beta =2\xi ^\alpha D_\delta D_\alpha \xi _\nu =2D_\delta \left(D_\delta \xi _\nu \right)=0,$$
(29)
where Eqs. (15) and (17) has been considered. Therefore, the symplectic current is closed on $`Z`$,

$$\delta j^a=0.$$
(30)
Since we have explicitly assumed that the worldsheet is orientable, we can define integration in a direct way, and to construct the following two-form in terms of $`j^a`$, which will correspond finally to the wanted symplectic structure:

$$\omega _\mathrm{\Sigma }\sqrt{\gamma }j^a𝑑\mathrm{\Sigma }_a,$$
(31)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a spacelike section of $`m`$, and corresponds to an initial value (hyper)surface for the configuration of the defect. Since $`j^a`$ is covariantly conserved, $`\omega `$ in Eq. (31) is independent of the choice of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. On the other hand, since $`\delta \sqrt{\gamma }=0`$ (from this condition the equations of motion for the defect are obtained from Eq. (9)), the closeness of $`\omega `$ holds if $`j^a`$ itself is closed, and then, from Eqs. (30), and (31), $`\delta \omega =0`$. Hence, $`\omega `$ is the wanted symplectic structure on $`Z`$.

It remains to discuss gauge invariance of $`\omega `$. Since all fields appearing in the definition of $`\omega `$ transform homogeneously, like tensors, $`\omega `$ is invariant under spacetime diffeomorphisms. Similarly, since $`\omega `$ involves integration of a worldsheet density, $`\omega `$ is also invariant under worldsheet reparametrizations. With respect to normal frame rotations, $`\varphi _i`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}^a\varphi ^i`$ transform homogeneously, like vectors, and then $`j^a`$ and $`\omega `$, transforming as scalars, are invariant under such rotations.

VII. DISCUSSIONS AND OPEN QUESTIONS

In this manner, we have obtained a symplectic structure on $`Z`$ for defects propagating on a curved background spacetime, and it emerges in a natural way and without additional assumptions. However, as pointed out in Refs. , the CG scheme employed in the present treatment fails to treat the topological defect as a source for gravity, which should be considered in a more complete description of deformations, and in the construction of the corresponding symplectic structure. Within this complete scheme, the deformations of the ambient spacetime itself will be taken into account, and it is possible that similar results can be obtained in such situation. We hope to address this subject in forthcoming works.

As a by-product, the worldsheet conserved current $`j^a`$ obtained in Section 5.2, and used for generating a symplectic structure on $`Z`$ in the present approach, can be considered, in a more ordinary sense, as a Noetherian current that allows us to obtain conserved currents associated with any continuous symmetries of the background.

It is opportune to comment on the role that the deformation gauge connection $`\gamma ^{ij}`$ plays on the phase space $`Z`$. Such as in the CG scheme, in the present approach it never appears explicitly in any relevant physical quantity on $`Z`$, such as $`j^a`$ and $`\omega `$, but it shows up in intermediate calculations, for example in Eqs. (18) and the first one of the previous section. Therefore, the connection neither needs to be calculated explicitly on $`Z`$.

Finally, in spite of we have considered the simplest theory for an extended topological defect, the present results show that the symplectic geometry of the phase space possesses a rich underlying structure, deserving a more wide investigation. In fact, using a different approach for the geometry of deformations of defects given by Carter, we have obtained results analogous to those presented here , and questions such as the existence of a symplectic potential, degenerate directions of the (pre-)symplectic structure, are explicitly discussed . These results will provide a very powerful geometrical approach for the quantization of such objects, and we hope to extend our achievements elsewhere.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by CONACyT and the Sistema Nacional de Investigadores (México). The author wants to thank H. Garcia Compean for drawing my attention on this matter.


format: text

text:
# A Lie-algebra model for a noncommutative space time geometry

## 1 Introduction

After the motivation for a noncommutative geometry of space time has been demonstrated in numerous papers (s. e. g. \[1-3\]) there exists now a well established form of quantum field theory on noncommutative spaces \[4-10\] which allows to calculate Feynman diagrams and related values. Those theories show a characteristic mixing of infrared and ultraviolet divergencies , but the study of planar diagrams exhibits the fact that they cannot be handled without the usual ultraviolet cutoff in momentum space necesarry for the treatment of ordinary renormalizable quantum field theories. On the other hand it was one of the motivations of noncommutative geometry to generate such a cutoff within the theory what has now definitely failed for the class of models mentioned above . Therefore it seems still necessary to look for other possibilities to employ noncommutative space time geometry.

Generally speaking, such models are mainly contained in three classes depending on the structure of the commutator for space time coordinates.

a) The canonical structure:

$$[X^\lambda ,X^\mu ]=i\mathrm{\Theta }^{\lambda \mu }$$
(1.1)
b) The Lie-algebra structure:

$$[X^\lambda ,X^\mu ]=ic_\nu ^{\lambda \mu }X^\nu $$
(1.2)
c) The quantum space structure:

$$[X^\lambda ,X^\mu ]=id_{\nu \sigma }^{\lambda \mu }X^\nu X^\sigma $$
(1.3)
The last class has been intensively treated in papers like \[12-15\], as a general feature space time becomes discrete avoiding most renormalization problems for possible quantum field theories. The case a) is usually connected with string theory while case b) has been worked out in papers like \[16-19\].

Our approach shall be viewed as a combination of a) and b) because our main ingredient is the postulate of a Lie algebra including all operators of physical interest. As a consequence we demand the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ to belong to that algebra as central operators. We understand that this postulate is in disagreement with nearly all other models existing but their drawbacks seem to provide enough arguments for testing new conceptions. The current paper is therefore mainly devoted to illustrating the consequences of our approach.

Because standard quantum field theory on noncommutative spaces of type a) is also not Lorentz covariant, it is worthwhile to re-examine the role of Lorentz invariance in noncommutative field theory. After we have taken as a basis the existence of a Lie algebra we found it straightforward to demand the Lorentz group to be the second factor in the semi-direct product of Lie groups (s. next sect.). This condition seems neither to weak nor to strong and its consequences are worth of being worked out.

The paper is organized as follows. In sect.2 we define our model and determine the possible structure of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ . In sect.3 we present an explicit representation of our noncommutative Lie algebra. Sect.4 is devoted to the inclusion of momentum operators and sect.5 deals with the problem of physical invariants. The last section 6 contains our conclusions.

## 2 The model

We consider a flat four-dimensional space time with operators $`X^0,X^1,X^2,X^3`$ obeying the commutation relations

$`[X^\lambda ,X^\mu ]=i\mathrm{\Theta }^{\lambda \mu },\mathrm{\Theta }^{\lambda \mu }=\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \lambda }`$ (2.1)
where the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\lambda \mu }`$ are considered to be ”true” (real) numbers. Herewith we mean that they are considered to be proportional to the unit operator $`E`$ of a Lie algebra. Hence this operator has to commute with all other operators of the algebra considered. It is this condition which restricts the model to a great extent, what is viewed here as an advantage taking into account the huge variety of models possible.

Therefore, besides the ordinary condition

$$[\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu },X^\lambda ]=0$$
(2.2)
we demand for the commutator

$$[\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu },M^{\rho \sigma }]=0,$$
(2.3)
where the $`M^{\rho \sigma }`$ (with $`M^{\rho \sigma }=M^{\sigma \rho }`$) are the generators of the Lorentz or $`SO(3,1)`$ group obeying the standard commutation relations among each other. It might seem more natural instead of eq. (2.3) to postulate the commutator to be given by a tensor representation of $`SO(3,1)`$ . Imposing further Lie algebra conditions those models are consistent with commuting momentum operators and allow the definition of mass and spin in the usual manner. They are realized in standard noncommutative field theory (s. e.g. , remind also some recently raised criticism baised on different schemes of renormalization of a non-local field theory in ). Nevertheless this paper deals with models based on eq. (2.3) and is devoted to studying the consequences of those conditions.

The set of physical operators which is postulated to form a Lie algebra $`L`$ contains 11 operators, besides the six Lorentz generators and the four space time operators we also must keep the unit operator $`E`$ . So our algebra $`L`$ has a non-vanishing centre and is therefore nilpotent and hence solvable. Due to a standard theorem in Lie algebra theory  $`L`$ can be decomposed into a semi-direct sum

$$L=I_L)S$$
(2.4)
where $`I_L`$ is the largest solvable ideal and $`S`$ is semi-simple. The part of $`S`$ is obviously played here by the algebra $`so(3,1)`$ and therefore $`I_L`$ is given by the set of operators $`\{E,X^\mu \}`$ being nilpotent and hence solvable.

To fulfill the property of an ideal the commutators of $`M`$ and $`X`$ must belong to $`I_L`$ :

$$[M^{\mu \nu },X^i]=if_j^{\mu \nu i}X^j$$
(2.5)
We have used Greek and Latin indices to manifest their different character in further discussion. (The rather unphysical inclusion of $`E`$ on the r.h.s. of eq. (2.5) has been disregarded.) We understand the Latin indices as operating in a 4x4 matrix space while the Greek indices label the six different matrices $`F^A,A=1\mathrm{}6`$ . Then the semi-direct sum (2.4) forces those matrices (to be precise with a factor $`(1)`$) to form a representation of $`so(3,1)`$

$$[F^A,F^B]=C_C^{AB}F^C$$
(2.6)
where $`C_C^{AB}`$ are the structure constants of the algebra $`so(3,1)`$. The last equation can be understood as the Jacobi condition for two $`M`$ and one $`X`$ operators. The second condition derived from the semi-direct sum is equivalent to the Jacobi identity for two $`X`$ and one $`M`$ operators. Taking into account eq. (2.5) it can be written as a true matrix condition

$$F\mathrm{\Theta }=\mathrm{\Theta }F^T$$
(2.7)
For clearness we add that the indices of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ should to be understood as Latin ones.

Now we look for solutions of eqs. (2.6) and (2.7) with unknown matrices $`F`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ . Exploiting two times the symplectic algebra $`sp(2)`$ we have found the solution

$$\mathrm{\Theta }^{mn}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& A& B\\ 0& 0& B& A\\ A& B& 0& 0\\ B& A& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(2.8)
or explicitly

$`\mathrm{\Theta }^{02}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{13}=A,\mathrm{\Theta }^{03}=\mathrm{\Theta }^{12}=B`$ (2.9)
$`\mathrm{\Theta }^{01}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{23}=0`$
$`A`$ and $`B`$ are arbitrary real constants not fixed within our model. The rank of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is four as long as they do not vanish both. The electric and magnetic components of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ are of equal value. The Lie algebra $`F`$ is composed of all matrices of the form

$$F=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}J& C& D+K& EG\\ C& J& E+G& D+K\\ D+K& E+G& J& C\\ EG& D+K& C& J\end{array}\right)$$
(2.10)
where $`C,D,E,J,G,K`$ are arbitrary numbers.

The use of $`sp(2)`$ is due to the fact, that there is no non-trivial solution, if $`so(3)`$ is used instead of $`so(3,1)`$ . The same happens if one tries to substitute the last condition of eq. (2.9) by introducing a further constant. The choice of the six matrices $`F^A`$ is not unique, we have taken the $`M`$-operators to be antisymmetric and the $`N`$-operators to be symmetric. There is still an obvious freedom for a three-dimensional rotation. Now we can give the explicit view of the $`F`$-matrices describing the transformation of space time operators in our model. For shortness we write $`M`$ and $`N`$ for the generators of the $`F`$-algebra but one has to keep in mind that the ”true” representation of $`so(3,1)`$ is given by $`M`$ and $`N`$ in our notation.

$`M^1=1/2\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 1& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right),M^2=1/2\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (2.19)
$`M^3=1/2\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),N^1=1/2\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$ (2.28)
$`N^2=1/2\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),N^3=1/2\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (2.37)
Those equations are to be read (s. eq.(2.5)) like

$`[M^1,X^0]={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}X^1,[M^1,X^2]={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}X^3,`$ (2.38)
$`[M^1,X^1]={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}X^0,[M^1,X^3]={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}X^2`$
and analogously for $`M^2,M^3,N^1,N^2,N^3`$ .The first question is of course what kind of representation of $`so(3,1)`$ is given by $`F`$ . In ordinary commutative theory the space time operators are transformed by the usual vector representation of $`so(3,1)`$ that is in the $`D^{(i,j)}`$ notation by the representation $`D^{(1/2,1/2)}`$ . Our representation is reducible which can be seen quickly by calculating the Lorentz invariant $`\stackrel{}{𝐌}\stackrel{}{𝐍}`$ which is here proportional to the matrix $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 1& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right)`$ excluding irreducibility.

Applying the non-singular transformation matrix

$`T={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& i& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& i\\ 1& i& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& i\end{array}\right),T^1=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 1& 0\\ i& 0& i& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 1\\ 0& i& 0& i\end{array}\right)`$ (2.47)
the matrices (2.11) can be brought to the form $`M^{}=TMT^1`$

$`M^1={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sigma _z& 0\\ 0& \sigma _z\end{array}\right),M^2={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sigma _y& 0\\ 0& \sigma _y\end{array}\right),M^3={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sigma _x& 0\\ 0& \sigma _x\end{array}\right)`$ (2.54)
$`N^1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sigma _z& 0\\ 0& \sigma _z\end{array}\right),N^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sigma _y& 0\\ 0& \sigma _y\end{array}\right),N^3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sigma _x& 0\\ 0& \sigma _x\end{array}\right)`$ (2.61)
which clearly shows the decomposition into $`D^{(1/2,0)}D^{(0,1/2)}`$, the reducible representation used in Dirac’s equation. Nevertheless we mention that in our case both subspaces obtain the same orientation only after an additional rotation around the $`y`$-axis in generator space by the angle of $`\pi `$ . At the end of this section we comment about the relation of our model to other ones.

At first, exploiting another representation as usual for the transformation of space time operators means to depart from viewing noncommutativity as a deformation of commutative theory, i.e. for $`\mathrm{\Theta }0`$ we do not obtain the standard theory because there is no smooth way from an irreducible representation to a reducible one (in general to any other non-equivalent). We deeply believe that if live is noncommutative, there is no analyticity to be expected in $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ . This is quite analogous to perturbation theory in ordinary quantum mechanics. We expect the picture to resemble some kind of phase transition when one passes from commutativity to noncommutativity.

The second difference consists in the fact, that $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ cannot be changed by Lorentz transformations (s. eq. (2.3)) and therefore plays the role of a constant external field, which of course breaks Lorentz invariance. From eq. (2.8) it follows, that the $`x`$-dimension is treated differently from $`y`$ and $`z`$, which are handled on the same footing. In a further study the latter ones could be compactified. This leads to the idea to consider our model as a toy model for higher compactified dimensions. Here the important question arises wether noncommutativity might be connected with those extra dimensions only.

## 3 Explicit structure of our noncommutative Lie algebra

For any finite-dimensional Lie algebra there exists a true matrix representation. It is interesting to look at it for our five-dimensional nilpotent algebra $`I_L`$ . It can be easily seen that the five 4x4 matrices

$`X^0=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ B& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& A& 0\end{array}\right),X^1=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ A& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& B& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (3.9)
$`X^2=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),X^3=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (3.18)
$`E=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (3.23)
fulfill the commutation relations

$`[X^0,X^2]=AE,[X^0,X^3]=BE,[X^1,X^2]=BE,`$ (3.24)
$`[X^1,X^3]=AE,[X^i,E]=0`$
One can get rid of the constants $`A`$ and $`B`$ after introducing so-called renormalized light-cone coordinates $`\stackrel{~}{X}^0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{X}^1`$ by

$`\stackrel{~}{X}^0={\displaystyle \frac{BX^0+AX^1}{A^2+B^2}},\stackrel{~}{X}^1={\displaystyle \frac{AX^0+BX^1}{A^2+B^2}}`$ (3.25)
resulting in the easier commutation relations

$`[\stackrel{~}{X}^0,X^3]=1,[\stackrel{~}{X}^1,X^2]=1`$ (3.26)
All other commutators vanish. In the matrix representation $`\stackrel{~}{X}^0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{X}^1`$ take the form

$`\stackrel{~}{X}^0=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)\stackrel{~}{X}^1=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (3.35)
As a next step we shall integrate the algebra $`I_L`$ and construct the Lie group (to be exact the universal covering Lie group) of the Lie algebra $`I_L`$ . We call this five parameter group $`\stackrel{~}{X}^4`$ which is the noncommutative generalization of the four-dimensional space time coordinate group . One way of doing that is the following. Let $`g\stackrel{~}{X}^4`$ be a function of the parameters $`y_0,\stackrel{}{y}`$ and a phase $`\varphi `$ and

$$g(y_0,\stackrel{}{y},\varphi )=\mathrm{exp}(iX^0y_0+iX^1y_1+iX^2y_2+iX^3y_3+iE\varphi )$$
(3.36)
Using Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff’s formula for operators whose commutators commute with the original ones the composition law and the inverse element can be defined in the way:

$`g(y,\varphi )g(z,\sigma )`$ $`=`$ $`g(y+z,\varphi +\sigma +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}iA[y_0z_2y_2z_0y_1z_3+y_3z_1]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}iB[y_0z_3y_3z_0+y_1z_2y_2z_1])`$
$`g^1`$ $`=`$ $`g(y,\varphi )`$ (3.37)
Now one may ask how to construct finite dimensional irreducible representations of the Lie group $`\stackrel{~}{X}^4\times )SO(3,1)`$ . A standard theorem  tells us that we have to look for all characters $`\chi `$ of $`\stackrel{~}{X}^4`$ fulfilling the property

$$\chi (g)=\chi (g_{s}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}gg_s)$$
(3.38)
where

$`g_sSO(3,1)`$
Eq. (3.8) is fulfilled only by characters depending on $`\varphi `$ solely. But the composition law eq. (3.7) does not allow such characters to exist. Hence all finite dimensional irreducible representations of our semi-direct product are (like in commutative case) equivalent to the finite dimensional irreducible representations of $`SO(3,1)`$ . We shall return to this important point after the inclusion of momenta in the next section.

## 4 The inclusion of momentum operators

Now it is straightforward to include momentum operators in our noncommutative Lie algebra. To do that in a consistent way one has to care for all possible Jacobi conditions to be fulfilled by the commutators invented. At first we suppose the commutators of $`M`$ and $`P`$ operators to be given by a representation of $`so(3,1)`$, that is

$$[M^{\mu \nu },P^i]=ih_j^{\mu \nu i}P^j$$
(4.1)
where the matrices $`H^A`$ have to obey the condition of eq. (2.6) equivalent to ($`MMP`$) Jacobi identity. Next we wish to preserve the canonical quantization commutation relations

$$[X^i,P^j]=ig^{ij}$$
(4.2)
where $`g^{ij}`$ is the Minkowski metric tensor. Now the ($`MPX`$) Jacobi condition leads to the matrix constraint

$$H=gF^Tg$$
(4.3)
which determines $`H`$ fully.

It follows in our model that momentum operator transformation is given by an equivalent (but not identical) to coordinate operator transformation representation of $`so(3,1)`$ . From eq. (2.7) we derive

$$FA=AH$$
(4.4)
with $`A=\mathrm{\Theta }g`$ .(Remember that $`A`$ has a non-vanishing determinant.) We remind the reader that in commutative case for representation $`D^{(1/2,1/2)}`$ $`H`$ is simply identical to $`F`$ .

It is now consistent with our approach to assume

$$[P^\mu ,P^\lambda ]=i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{\mu \nu }$$
(4.5)
and

$$[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{\mu \nu },M^{\rho \sigma }]=0$$
(4.6)
The concrete form of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$ is up to now not specified, but the ($`PPM`$) Jacobi condition yields

$$H\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}H^T$$
(4.7)
Introducing $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{}`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{}=g\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}g`$ eq. (4.7) is equivalent to

$$F^T\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{}F$$
(4.8)
which can be easily solved for given $`F`$ from eq. (2.10). The result is

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& C& D\\ 0& 0& D& C\\ C& D& 0& 0\\ D& C& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(4.9)
where $`C`$ and $`D`$ are arbitrary (real) constants. The ($`XXP`$), ($`PPX`$) and ($`PPP`$) Jacobi conditions are fulfilled if we put

$`[\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu },P^i]=[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{\mu \nu },X^i]=[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{\mu \nu },P^i]=0`$ (4.10)
We stress the fact that our model is consistent even if $`C`$ and $`D`$ vanish both. In that case noncommutativity is connected with coordinate space only and not with momentum space. This point reminds strongly what happens in quantum field theory of noncommutative spaces even though our model is different from theirs . The consequences of non-vanishing $`C`$ and $`D`$ will be analyzed in the next section.

## 5 Invariants and the mass problem

In this section we study the noncommutative generalization of the Poincare group
$`\stackrel{~}{T}^4\times )SO(3,1)`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{T}^4`$ is the generalization of the commutative four dimensional translation group $`T^4`$. Its Lie algebra is generated by the operators $`P^0,P^1,P^2,P^3`$ and $`E`$ . That algebra can be integrated in the same way as in section 3 .

Hence the Lie algebra of our generalized Poincare group is nilpotent and therefore solvable. The usual construction of invariants for the Lie group of our algebra does not apply because the Cartan-Weyl tensor is singular. We expect the existence of two independent central operators for our Lie algebra but in the literature  there was even no theorem making statements about the number of invariants in case of solvable Lie algebras. Therefore we shall construct below the bilinear central operator by hand.

We consider the operator

$$\stackrel{~}{I}=i_{mn}P^mP^n$$
(5.1)
with numbers $`i_{mn}`$ forming the matrix $`I`$ . From eq. (4.5) we calculate

$$[\stackrel{~}{I},P^l]=P^m(i_{mn}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{nl}+i_{mn}^T\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{nl})$$
(5.2)
In the same way after eq. (4.1) we find

$$[\stackrel{~}{I},M^{\mu \lambda }]=P^m(h_m^{T\mu \lambda n}i_{nl}+i_{mn}h_l^{\mu \lambda n})P^l$$
(5.3)
which leads to the matrix condition

$$H^TI=IH$$
(5.4)
This condition has to be fulfilled by all six matrices $`H`$ . To solve this condition we apply a non-singular transformation matrix $`\stackrel{~}{T}=gT^{1T}g`$ in the way

$$H^{}=\stackrel{~}{T}H\stackrel{~}{T}^1$$
(5.5)
and therefore

$$I^{}=\stackrel{~}{T}^{1T}I\stackrel{~}{T}^1$$
(5.6)
We shall obtain $`H^{}`$ which are the six matrices of eqs. (2.14) with several signs reversed. Nevertheless it is evident that any $`I^{}`$ fulfilling eq. (5.4) is given by

$$I^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sigma _y& 0\\ 0& \lambda \sigma _y\end{array}\right)$$
(5.7)
which after retransformation leads to

$$I=\lambda _1\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)+\lambda _2\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \sigma _y\\ \sigma _y& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(5.8)
with all $`\lambda `$ being arbitrary constants. (This $`I`$ is antisymmetric and therefore obeys eq. (5.2).) But now we have

$$\stackrel{~}{I}=2i(\lambda _1C+i\lambda _2D)$$
(5.9)
That means $`\stackrel{~}{I}E`$, which may have been expected from the very beginning. We have done the calculation in an explicit way to show that here is no bilinear central operator besides $`E`$ . This is one of the intrinsic problems of constructing central operators for a nilpotent Lie algebra which by definition contains a non-trivial centre. The only way to interprete the above result in a physical manner is, that the mass operator is a constant and therefore all particles have the same mass. This consequence, which at the first moment seems to rule out the model, must be viewed in context with the arguments of sect. 2 about a necessary phase transition. Then it is really very unlikely that masses and other particle parameters resemble each other on different sides of the transition point. (For vanishing $`C`$ and $`D`$ the masses also vanish.) It is not surprising that the square of the Pauli-Lubanski vector $`ϵ_{lmnk}M^{mn}P^k`$ is not central in our Lie algebra. By direct calculation we have established that the commutator with $`P^s`$ does not vanish (It is a non-zero combination of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$, $`M`$ and $`P`$ .) while the one with $`M^{rs}`$ does.

To construct infinit dimensional irreducible representations of our generalized Poincare group one has to adjust the standard procedure (for Abelian $`T^4`$) via orbits to the noncommutative case which seems to be an interesting task for the future.

## 6 Conclusions

We have presented a Lie-algebra model for noncommutative coordinate and momentum space which contains four unrelated parameters not to be determined within the model. After redefinition the number of parameters can be reduced to two, namely $`\sqrt{A^2+B^2}`$ and $`\sqrt{C^2+D^2}`$ , the former setting the scale for $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and the latter for the mass.

While Lorentz covariance is broken by $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ itself is considered as a Lorentz scalar.

The representation under which coordinate and momentum operators are transformed can be no longer $`D^{(1/2,1/2)}`$ , the usual vector representation. It turns out that the easiest possibility is the reducible spinor representation $`D^{(1/2,0)}D^{(0,1/2)}`$ , well known from Dirac’s equation. That forces us to adopt the occurence of a phase transition between noncommutative and commutative world instead of the usual conception of a smooth deformation. This point has to be worked out in further research. The phase transition also has to generate the mass spectrum because in our approach the only suitable mass operator is a constant. The main open question is the construction of a second invariant which is thought to replace ordinary spin. This problem is under consideration now.

## 7 Acknowledgements

This work has been supported by DFG .
The author thanks J. Wess, D. Lüst, H. Dorn and M. Karowski for helpful discussions and J. Lukierski for critical advice.


text:
# Non-Markoffian effects of a simple nonlinear bath

## I Introduction

The linear bath of oscillators plays a prominent role in discussions of dissipation and decoherence 1 ; 2 . In the classical limit, the force fluctuations derived from that bath correspond to a Gaussian random process. Although this is a generic case (due to the central limit theorem), there are physical situations when non-Gaussian random processes are important. In this report, we examine the simplest possible quantum-mechanical bath whose fluctuations correspond to a classical telegraph noise: a single two-level system subject to a white noise force. The effects of this nonlinear bath are analyzed by coupling it, in turn, to a spin, whose relaxational dynamics under the action of the bath is calculated.

In the literature, another type of physically relevant nonlinear bath is usually discussed: the spin bathstamp ; sasha , consisting of some large number of spins which are coupled to the system under consideration. Our model system is simpler in that it contains only a single “nonlinear element”, the two-level system. Irreversibility is generated not by having a larger number of spins but by the coupling to the linear bath. Although designed as a drastically simplified model system, it may be physically relevant for situations like charged tunneling systemspaladino  in the vicinity of a mesoscopic quantum-coherent device (e.g. a Cooper-pair box3 ), which lead to electrostatic potential fluctuations and which are, themselves, also subject to dissipation and decoherence by their environment. Viewed as a whole, our model consists of two coupled two-level systems, one of which is coupled to a linear bath. Of course, such systems have been studied before, both in the context of the quantum measurement problem and decoherence of coupled qubit systems. In Refs. 4, 5, 5b,  and 6, , the model of two spins (qubits) coupled to an environment has been analyzed in detail. However, we emphasize that our perspective and the questions addressed in this article are different from these approaches, since we are interested primarily in the differences arising from substituting the nonlinear bath (in the form of the dissipative two-level system) by a linear bath (see Fig. 1). This question is relevant, since, in many physical situations where the precise nature of the bath decohering a given system is unknown, it is simply treated as a linear bath, with some given correlation function. It is, therefore, desirable to understand in more detail the kind and magnitude of possible errors introduced by such an approximation, in cases where the coupling cannot be assumed to be very weak.

The basic strategy is to calculate the equilibrium correlator of the two-level system exactly (which can be done in the limit of infinite temperature) and to compare the results to three common approximations. One of those involves replacing the nonlinear bath by a linear bath, whose correlation function is prescribed to be the same as that of the nonlinear bath. The others are a Markoffian master equation and a weak-coupling approximation, applied to the dynamics of the spin under the influence of the bath.

The remainder of this work is organized as follows: In Sec. II, we give the model Hamiltonian. In Sec. III, the four different approaches are defined by specifying the evolution equation for the density matrix in each case. Afterwards, we explain (Sec. IV) how the equilibrium correlator of the $`z`$-component of the spin may be obtained by solving these equations. Finally, Sec. V. presents plots showing the numerical results for the spin correlator, along with a comparison between the different approaches.

## II The model

We consider a two-level system $`S`$ coupled to another two-level system $`B`$, which represents an example of a nonlinear dissipative bath, since it is subject to a fluctuating force $`F`$:

$$\widehat{H}=ϵ_S\widehat{\sigma }_z^S+\mathrm{\Delta }_S\widehat{\sigma }_x^S+J\widehat{\sigma }_z^S\widehat{\sigma }_z^B+\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\sigma }_x^B+\widehat{F}\widehat{\sigma }_z^B+\widehat{H}_F.$$
(1)
Here the parameters $`ϵ_S`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$ serve to define any desired two-level system $`S`$. This system is coupled to $`B`$ via $`\widehat{\sigma }_z^B`$, with the coupling strength between $`S`$ and $`B`$ being given by $`J`$. The oscillations of $`\widehat{\sigma }_z^B(t)`$ at the frequency $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are noisy, due to the action of the fluctuating force $`\widehat{F}`$, which may stem from a linear bath of harmonic oscillators, whose Hamiltonian is given by $`\widehat{H}_F`$. Below we will specialize to the limiting case of infinite temperature, where $`\widehat{F}`$ becomes a purely classical noise force.

The dissipative dynamics of $`S`$ can be characterized in terms of several different quantities. Here we will analyze the decay of the equilibrium correlator $`\widehat{\sigma }_z^S(t)\widehat{\sigma }_z^S(0)`$.

Solving the full model of a system of two interacting spins coupled to a linear bath at arbitrary temperatures and coupling strengths represents a formidable problem in itself. It has been attacked in the past using the Feynman-Vernon influence functional 7 , both analytically 4  (in certain limiting cases) as well as numerically 6 . For our purposes, we will be content with analyzing a technically simpler special case. We choose $`F`$ to be a classical white noise fluctuating force,

$$F(t)F(0)=\gamma \delta (t),$$
(2)
which corresponds to the limit of infinite temperature $`T`$ of the bath (taken such that the overall noise strength remains constant).

Under these circumstances, the dissipative dynamics of $`S+B`$ under the action of $`F`$ can be described exactly by using a Markoffian master equation. Note that this is, of course, unrelated to the validity of a master equation description for the action of $`B`$ onto $`S`$ alone, which we will discuss below. The limit of infinite temperature is dictated mostly by the desire to have a comparatively strong decay of the correlator of $`\widehat{\sigma }_z^B(t)`$ (with a decay rate on the order of B’s transition frequency $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$) while still retaining the validity of a simple Markoffian master equation description (for the full system $`S+B`$).

In the following, we will call the exact solution “approach 1”, while “approach 2” refers to a simple master equation applied to $`S`$ alone, “approach 3” replaces the nonlinear by a linear bath, and “approach 4” is the weak-coupling approximation.

## III Master equation description of the relaxation

*Master equation for approach 1:* The following exact master equation description is used for the action of $`F`$ onto the combined system $`B+S`$:

$$\dot{\widehat{\rho }}_{SB}(t)=i[\widehat{H}_{SB},\widehat{\rho }_{SB}(t)]\gamma \widehat{\rho }_{SB}(t)+\gamma \widehat{\sigma }_z^B\widehat{\rho }_{SB}(t)\widehat{\sigma }_z^B.$$
(3)
$`\widehat{H}_{SB}`$ is the Hamiltonian for the system $`S`$ and $`B`$ alone. Note that, in contrast to the usual master equation, no secular approximation8  has been used in deriving this equation, which means the resulting decay rate does not have to be small when compared to the transition frequencies of the system $`S+B`$. This is possible because the bath correlation function is a delta function, which also makes the equation exact. We remark further that Eq. (3) is solved directly in the basis in which $`\widehat{\sigma }_z^B`$ and $`\widehat{\sigma }_z^S`$ are diagonal. A transformation into the interaction picture (as is commonly performed for the usual master equation description) would lead to explicitly time-dependent terms in this equation.

*Master equation for approach 2:* As has been explained above, we will use the master equation description not only for the action of $`F`$ onto the combined system $`S+B`$ (see Eq. (3)), but also for the action of $`F+B`$ onto $`S`$ alone. This constitutes the approximate “approach 2”, involving the usual kind of master equation, which is valid only for sufficiently weak coupling J, since it is derived by applying both the Markoff and secular approximation (see Ref. 8, ). In the unperturbed eigenbasis of system $`S`$, it reads:

$`\dot{\rho }_{Skj}=(\mathrm{\Gamma }_k+\mathrm{\Gamma }_j+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{kj}+i(\mathrm{\Delta }_k\mathrm{\Delta }_j)`$ (4)
$`+i(E_kE_j))\rho _{Skj}+\delta _{kj}{\displaystyle }_{lk}\rho _{Sll}|A_{kl}|^22\pi BB_{E_lE_k}.`$
Equation (4) describes the relaxation of the reduced density matrix $`\widehat{\rho }_S`$ of system $`S`$ alone, under the action of the coupling $`J\widehat{\sigma }_z^S\widehat{\sigma }_z^B`$ to the bath. We have introduced the abbreviation $`\widehat{A}\widehat{\sigma }_z^S`$.

The Fourier transform of the correlator of $`\widehat{B}J\widehat{\sigma }_z^B`$ defines the “bath spectrum”:

$`B(t)B(0)\widehat{B}(t)\widehat{B}(0)=J^2\widehat{\sigma }_z^B(t)\widehat{\sigma }_z^B(0)`$
$`BB_\omega {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑te^{i\omega t}B(t)B(0).`$ (5)
It is real and symmetric in the limit of infinite temperature considered here, and therefore it is equivalent to a classical colored noise force. As will be explained below, $`BB_\omega `$ is found by applying the master equation (3) to $`B`$ alone. The decay rates are defined by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k`$ $``$ $`\pi {\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}|A_{kn}|^2BB_{E_kE_n}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{kj}`$ $``$ $`2\pi A_{kk}A_{jj}BB_0,`$ (6)
and the energy shifts are given via

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_k\underset{n}{}|A_{kn}|^2𝑑\omega \frac{BB_\omega }{E_kE_n\omega }.$$
(7)
Here the indices and energies refer to the unperturbed eigenstates of the original Hamiltonian of $`S`$ alone: $`\widehat{H}_Sϵ_S\widehat{\sigma }_z^S+\mathrm{\Delta }_S\widehat{\sigma }_x^S`$.

Approach 3 consists in replacing the nonlinear bath by a linear one. If the two-level fluctuator $`B`$ were replaced by a harmonic oscillatorgarg ; fkw , this procedure of substituting a linear bath with an appropriate correlation function for the combination of $`F`$ and $`B`$ would be exact. Here, it is an approximation whose reliability we want to analyze by comparison to the exact solution. In our case, the fact that the power spectrum $`BB_\omega `$ is real and symmetric means that $`B`$ can be treated as a classical Gaussian random process. Therefore, we have to solve

$$\dot{\widehat{\rho }}_S(t)=i[\widehat{H}_{stoch}(t),\widehat{\rho }_S(t)]$$
(8)
with the stochastic time-dependent Hamiltonian:

$$\widehat{H}_{stoch}(t)=ϵ_S\widehat{\sigma }_z^S+\mathrm{\Delta }_S\widehat{\sigma }_x^S+B(t)\widehat{\sigma }_z^S.$$
(9)
The numerical procedure used for averaging over the realizations of the process $`B()`$ is described below, in Sec. V.

Approach 4: Instead of the Markoff approximation one can use a weak-coupling approximation. This keeps the full information contained in the correlator $`BB_\omega `$, at the price of introducing a kernel for the master equation which is no longer local in time. We find the following weak-coupling equation, where only terms up to second order in $`J`$ have been kept:

$`\dot{\widehat{\rho }}_S(t)=i[\widehat{H_S},\widehat{\rho }_S(t)]`$ (10)
$`{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑\tau B(\tau )B(0)[\widehat{\sigma }_z^S,e^{i\widehat{H_S}\tau }[\widehat{\sigma }_z^S,\widehat{\rho }_S(t\tau )]e^{i\widehat{H_S}\tau }].`$
This equation is conveniently solved by using the Laplace transform.

## IV Relaxation of density matrix and correlator

*Decay of the equilibrium correlator* \- We want to obtain the equilibrium correlator of $`\widehat{\sigma }_z^S(t)`$,

$$\widehat{\sigma }_z^S(t)\widehat{\sigma }_z^S(0)tr\left[\widehat{\rho }_{SB}^{(eq)}\widehat{\sigma }_z^S(t)\widehat{\sigma }_z^S(0)\right].$$
(11)
It is convenient to rewrite Eq. (11) in terms of the projector onto the spin-up state of $`S`$, $`\widehat{P}|_S|_S=\frac{1}{2}(1+\widehat{\sigma }_z^S)`$:

$$\widehat{\sigma }_z^S(t)\widehat{\sigma }_z^S(0)=4\widehat{P}(t)\widehat{P}(0)1.$$
(12)
Here, we have used $`\widehat{\rho }_{SB}^{(eq)}=\frac{1}{4}`$. The correlator of $`\widehat{P}(t)`$ can be found by calculating the probability to find the system $`S`$ in the state “up” at the time $`t`$, if it had been “up” at time $`0`$. This has to be averaged over all realizations of the random process $`F()`$:

$$\widehat{P}(t)\widehat{P}(0)=\frac{1}{2}tr_B|_S\widehat{U}_F(t)\widehat{P}\widehat{\rho }_B^{(eq)}\widehat{U}_F^{}(t)|_S_F.$$
(13)
Here $`\widehat{U}_F(t)`$ is the time-evolution operator for $`S+B`$ under the action of a given realization of $`F()`$. This equation is valid only because, in our model, the probability of finding “spin up” at a certain instant of time is independent of the history of $`F()`$. The expression (13) is nothing but the population $`\rho _{S11}(t)`$ of the state $`|_S`$ for a time-evolution starting from the initial condition of “spin up”, $`\widehat{\rho }_{SB}(0)=\widehat{P}\widehat{\rho }_B^{(eq)}`$:

$$\widehat{P}(t)\widehat{P}(0)=\frac{1}{2}\rho _{S11}(|t|).$$
(14)
Note that $`\rho _{S11}`$ decays towards $`1/2`$, such that $`\widehat{\sigma }_z^S(t)\widehat{\sigma }_z^S(0)`$ vanishes for $`t\mathrm{}`$ (as it should be). We have used the fact that the correlator is symmetric in time, since the potentially antisymmetric imaginary part vanishes. $`\widehat{\rho }_S(t)`$ can be calculated by applying the master equation that describes the action of $`F`$ onto $`S+B`$. Put differently, Eq. (14) constitutes an example of the quantum regression theorem. Using $`\widehat{\rho }_S`$, we calculate the Fourier transform of the equilibrium correlator of $`\widehat{\sigma }_z^S(t)`$:

$`K_{zz}^S(\omega )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑te^{i\omega t}\widehat{\sigma }_z^S(t)\widehat{\sigma }_z^S(0)`$ (15)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑te^{i\omega t}(\rho _{S11}(|t|)1/2).`$
$`K_{zz}^S(\omega )`$ is real-valued, symmetric and the integral over all frequencies gives $`1`$.

The master equation for the density matrix $`\widehat{\rho }`$ ($`\widehat{\rho }_{SB}`$) in the four-dimensional Hilbert space of $`S+B`$ represents a system of linear differential equations with constant coefficients. The latter are given by a complex-valued $`16\times 16`$ matrix $`C`$ that corresponds to the “superoperator” on the right-hand side of the master equation. The solution is the complex vector $`\rho `$, which consists of the $`16`$ components of the density matrix $`\widehat{\rho }`$ :

$$\dot{\rho }=C\rho .$$
(16)
The entries of $`C`$ can be read off directly from Eq. (3). The formal solution of Eq. (16),

$$\rho (t)=e^{Ct}\rho (0),$$
(17)
can be expressed in terms of the right-eigenvectors $`|\rho ^{(j)}`$, the left-eigenvectors $`\rho ^{(j)}|`$ and the eigenvalues $`\lambda ^{(j)}`$ of $`C`$:

$$\rho (t)=\underset{j}{}|\rho ^{(j)}\rho ^{(j)}|\rho (0)e^{\lambda ^{(j)}t}.$$
(18)
$`C`$ is not necessarily hermitian, so that the $`\lambda ^{(j)}`$ usually are complex-valued (with non-negative real parts) and the $`|\rho ^{(j)}`$ do not form an orthonormal basis (however, $`\rho ^{(i)}|\rho ^{(j)}=\delta _{ij}`$ by construction). In order to obtain $`\rho _{S11}(t)`$, we have to perform the trace over $`B`$, $`\rho _{S11}(t)=\rho _{SB1111}(t)+\rho _{SB1212}(t)`$. (In $`\rho _{SBs^{}b^{}sb}`$ the indices $`s,s^{}`$ refer to $`S`$, while $`b,b^{}`$ refer to $`B`$.) We will use the same notation for the components of $`\rho ^{(j)}`$, which is a complex vector. Then we obtain

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑te^{i\omega t}\rho _{S11}(t)=\underset{j}{}(\rho _{1111}^{(j)}+\rho _{1212}^{(j)})\frac{\rho ^{(j)}|\rho (0)}{\lambda ^{(j)}i\omega }.$$
(19)
Taking the real part of this expression gives $`K_{zz}^S(\omega )`$, see Eq. (15).

An analogous formula holds for the master equation describing the decay of $`\widehat{\rho }_S`$ ($`\widehat{\rho }`$ in that case) under the action of $`F+B`$ (approach 2), see Eq. (4). Then, $`C`$ corresponds to the $`4\times 4`$ matrix whose entries are read off from Eq. (4). Therefore, Eq. (19) only contains $`\rho _{11}^{(j)}`$ in that case, instead of the sum inside the brackets.

Similarly, we have to obtain the equilibrium correlator of $`\widehat{\sigma }_z^B(t)`$, which is needed as input both for the master equation describing the relaxation of $`S`$ alone (approach 2), the numerical sampling of random processes (approach 3) and the weak-coupling approximation (approach 4).

This is done by calculating the relaxation of $`\widehat{\rho }_B(t)`$ under the action of $`F`$, starting from the initial condition $`\widehat{\rho }_B(0)=|_B|_B`$ and applying the same formulas as above (with $`B`$ instead of $`S`$), for the master equation (3), adapted to the two-dimensional Hilbert space of $`B`$ (with a $`4\times 4`$ matrix $`C`$). $`\widehat{\sigma }_z^B(t)\widehat{\sigma }_z^B(0)`$ undergoes damped oscillations. Its Fourier transform

$$K_{zz}^B(\omega )=\frac{BB_\omega }{J^2}=\frac{8\mathrm{\Delta }^2\gamma }{\pi }\frac{1}{(\omega ^24\mathrm{\Delta }^2)^2+4\omega ^2\gamma ^2}$$
(20)
consists of broad peaks of width $`\gamma `$ (for $`\gamma ^2<4\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$), which is proportional to the strength of the noise force $`F`$ and may be comparable to the transition frequency $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ itself (see Fig. 2). Thus, $`B`$ indeed represents a noisy two-level fluctuator, which acts onto $`S`$ as a *nonlinear* (non-Gaussian) and *non-Markoffian* (colored) bath.

In order to solve the equations (10) of approach 4 (weak-coupling approximation), we need the Laplace transform of the equilibrium correlator of the bath $`B`$, which is connected to the Fourier transform in the usual way:

$`C_{BB}(s)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^{st}B(t)B(0)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega {\displaystyle \frac{BB_\omega }{s+i\omega }}=J^2{\displaystyle \frac{s+2\gamma }{s^2+2\gamma s+4\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}.`$
Using the Laplace transform, the system of differential equations becomes a system of linear algebraic equations, which can be solved by matrix inversion. All the results can be obtained analytically. However, here we only present the comparatively brief expression for the special case of $`ϵ_S=0`$:

$$K_{zz}^S(\omega )=\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{}e\left\{\frac{s+4C_{BB}(s)}{s^2+4C_{BB}(s)+4\mathrm{\Delta }_S^2}|_{s=i\omega }\right\}.$$
(22)
## V Numerical results

The following steps have been performed for calculating the correlator $`K_{zz}^S(\omega )`$ of $`\widehat{\sigma }_z^S(t)`$:

*Approach 1 (“exact description”):* The entries of the matrix $`C`$ are obtained from Eq. (3). The eigenvalues and eigenvectors of $`C`$ are calculated numerically and used to get $`K_{zz}^S(\omega )`$ according to Eqs. (19) and (15).

*Approach 2 (“simple master equation for S”):* First the action of $`F`$ onto $`B`$ is considered, to obtain the correlation function $`BB_\omega `$. This result is given in Eq. (20). It is used to set up the master equation describing the action of $`F+B`$ onto $`S`$, Eq. (4). Its coefficients define a $`4\times 4`$ “C-matrix”, which is diagonalized. The results are inserted into the appropriately modified Eq. (19), in order to obtain $`K_{zz}^S(\omega )`$.

*Approach 3 (“numerical sampling using colored noise”):* We calculate numerically the time-evolution of $`\widehat{\rho }_S(t)`$ under the action of the stochastic time-dependent Hamiltonian defined in Eq. (9), which depends on $`B(t)`$.

$`B(t)`$ is a particular realization of a stationary Gaussian random process of zero mean and power spectrum $`BB_\omega `$. The density matrix $`\widehat{\rho }_S(t)`$ has to be averaged over a statistical sample of different field configurations $`B(t)`$. This sample is produced by generating the Fourier coefficients of $`B`$ as independent complex Gaussian random variables of appropriate variance (given by the power spectrum). The field $`B(t)`$ itself is obtained using a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT). After averaging, we may use

$$\widehat{P}(t)\widehat{P}(0)=\frac{1}{2}\rho _{S11}(|t|)_B$$
(23)
and Eqs. (13) and (15) in order to obtain $`K_{zz}^S(\omega )`$. To this end, the Fourier transform of $`\rho _{S11}(|t|)`$ is calculated numerically, using a FFT on a time-grid of sufficiently small step-size $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ and sufficiently large length. The results displayed in the figures have been obtained using $`10^4`$ samples and a frequency resolution of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega =2\pi /800`$. The curves have been smoothed by averaging over $`5`$ to $`20`$ adjacent frequency bins.

*Approach 4 (“weak-coupling equation”):* We evaluate the analytical results obtained above (see, e.g., Eq. (22)) with the appropriate numerical values.

The relevant parameters in our model are $`ϵ_S,\mathrm{\Delta }_S,\mathrm{\Delta },`$ the coupling strength $`J`$, and the strength $`\gamma `$ of the noise force $`F`$. We choose the time scale such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }1`$. The results discussed in the following have been calculated for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S=1.2`$ ($`S`$ and $`B`$ “almost in resonance”).

To begin our discussion, we note some generic features of the results obtained for approaches 1 and 2. Since in these cases $`K_{zz}^S(\omega )`$ is essentially the Fourier transform of a density matrix relaxing according to a master equation, it consists of several Lorentzian peaks. Their number is constrained to be less than the maximum number of transition frequencies of the respective system ($`6`$ for $`S+B`$ and $`1`$ for $`S`$ alone, plus possible zero-frequency “pure” relaxation). In practice, degeneracies between transition frequencies and selection rules reduce that number to $`2`$ (or $`3`$) for approach 1, and $`1`$ (or $`2`$) for approach 2, for $`ϵ_S=0`$ (or $`ϵ_S0`$).

In the limit of weak coupling, $`J0`$, all that remains is a broadened peak at the transition frequency $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$ of system $`S`$ alone. In that limit, the results for all three models coincide, as expected (see Figs. 4 and 5). With increasing $`J`$, the peaks get broadened and shifted, and additional peaks may appear (in the case of approaches 1,3 and 4).

Naturally, the behaviour of approach 2 is simplest to analyze, since it is the textbook example of a master equation applied to a single two-level system. Since the correlator $`BB_\omega `$ is proportional to $`J^2`$, both the shift of the transition frequency and the width of the peak(s) increase like $`J^2`$, for arbitrarily large $`J`$. In contrast, the dependence of the peak width and the frequency shift on the noise strength $`\gamma `$ is non-monotonous. It is determined by the evolution of $`BB_\omega `$ (see Eq. (20) and Fig. 2) with increasing $`\gamma `$. For very small $`\gamma `$, the two-level fluctuator $`B`$ performs very weakly damped oscillations at the frequency $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Unless it is exactly at resonance with system $`S`$, the dissipative effects of $`B`$ on the dynamics of $`S`$ will be weak in that regime. The decay rate of $`S`$, which is given by the power spectrum of $`B`$ evaluated at $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$, grows linearly in $`\gamma `$ (for $`\gamma ^2(\mathrm{\Delta }_S^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2)^2/\mathrm{\Delta }_S^2`$). The transition frequency of $`S`$ is shifted upwards or downwards, depending on whether the main weight of the spectrum of $`B`$ is located below or above $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$$`(\mathrm{\Delta }<\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }>\mathrm{\Delta }_S)`$. For increasing $`\gamma `$, $`B`$ performs more strongly damped oscillations. The spectrum $`BB_\omega `$ concentrates around zero frequency (see Fig. 2) such that the decay rate of $`S`$ decreases again (like $`1/\gamma `$), after having gone through a maximum. The magnitude of the energy shift will also decrease for increasing $`\gamma `$, simply because the contributions of the power spectrum of $`B`$ lying to either side of $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$ will tend to cancel each other. However, in the limit $`\gamma \mathrm{}`$, the shift always saturates at a positive value which is independent of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. These facts can be read off from the analytical result for approach 2 (written down in the special case of $`ϵ_S=0`$):

$$K_{zz}^S(\omega )=\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{s=\pm 1}{}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2+(\omega s\omega _0)^2},$$
(24)
Here the peak width is given by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2J^2\mathrm{}e\mathrm{\Sigma }(2\mathrm{\Delta }_S)=2\pi BB_{2\mathrm{\Delta }_S}`$ , the shifted transition frequency is $`\omega _0=2\mathrm{\Delta }_S2J^2\mathrm{}m\mathrm{\Sigma }(2\mathrm{\Delta }_S)`$, and we have defined $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega )(2\gamma +i\omega )/(\omega ^2+4\mathrm{\Delta }^2+2i\omega \gamma )`$.

The simple master equation (approach 2) is expected to come close to the true result as long as the conditions of the Markoff and secular approximation are fulfilled. This means the coupling strength $`J`$ has to be so small that the resulting decay of $`S`$ proceeds slowly compared with the transition frequency itself (secular approximation) and with the correlation time of the bath (Markoff approximation). The latter is given by $`\tau _B=\frac{1}{\gamma }`$ if $`\gamma ^2<4\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ and $`\tau _B=\frac{1}{\gamma \sqrt{\gamma ^24\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}`$ if $`\gamma ^2>4\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$.

Now we pass on to a discussion of approach 1, which constitutes the exact solution for our physical system. The most notable difference to approach 2 is the appearance of a second peak at the transition frequency $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of the two-level fluctuator $`B`$. At small $`J`$, the strength of this peak grows like $`J^2`$, while its width is fixed (depending on $`\gamma `$). In this way, the power spectrum of the bath fluctuations shows up in the short-time behaviour of the correlator of the system $`S`$. This behaviour cannot be captured by the master equation (approach 2). Increasing $`J`$ leads to a frequency shift and a change in the width of the “original” peak at $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$, much like predicted by the simpler approach 2. However, in the description of approach 1, these changes are due to the change in eigenfrequencies and eigenvectors of the combined system $`S+B`$. At small $`J`$, the results of approaches 1 and 2 can be shown to coincide using perturbation theory (compare also Fig. 4 and 5, topmost graphs). Deviations from approach 2 appear at higher values of $`J`$, where the energy shift of approach 1 only grows linearly with $`J`$ (see Figs. 4 and 5, lower graphs). In contrast, the frequency of the second peak is suppressed to zero. This behaviour can easily be found from the diagonalization of the Hamiltonian for the combined system $`B+S`$ in the limit $`J\mathrm{}`$, when one obtains two pairs of degenerate energy levels, separated by $`2J`$.

Regarding the dependence on the noise strength $`\gamma `$, the same qualitative remarks apply as for approach 2. However, it is interesting to note that there is a frequency shift with increasing $`\gamma `$ in approach 1 as well (see Fig. 3), in spite of the fact that the additional terms in the nonsecular master equation (3) seem to describe a purely relaxational dynamics. This is in contrast to the behaviour known from the usual form of the master equation, Eq. (4), where the energy shifts can be read off directly from the imaginary coefficients in the equation.

We now turn to approach 3, where the nonlinear bath has been replaced by a linear bath (i.e. a colored Gaussian random process in our case). Since this model takes the full bath spectrum $`BB_\omega `$ as input, this spectrum may also show up in the result for the system correlator $`K_{zz}^S(\omega )`$, as is indeed the case. Fig. 3 demonstrates that this effect is most pronounced for small values of $`\gamma `$, where the bath spectrum has a relatively sharp structure (the noise field $`B()`$ acting on $`S`$ deviates strongly from white noise). In these cases, the qualitative agreement between approach 3 and approach 1 (“exact solution”) is much better than that between approach 2 (“simple master equation”) and approach 1 (see also Fig. 6). Nevertheless, there are deviations: In particular, there is no visible shift of the peaks in approach 3 with increasing $`J`$. They just become wider and asymmetric (this applies especially to the peak at frequency $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$). For higher values of $`\gamma `$, the linear bath (approach 3) in general shows less structure than the exact solution, obtained for the actual nonlinear bath.

Finally, we discuss approach 4, where the second peak shows up, in contrast to the Markoff approximation. In general, we would expect the weak-coupling solution to be a bit worse than the simulation of the linear bath with colored noise correlations (approach 3), since it is an approximation to the latter case. However, the solution for the special case $`ϵ_S=0`$ turns out to coincide completely with the exact solution (approach 1). The solution for $`ϵ_S=1`$ (or, more generally, $`ϵ_S0`$) is good for small system-bath coupling $`J`$. It fails for increasing $`J`$, where approach 3 seems to be the better approximation, provided $`ϵ_S`$ is not too small (see discussion above).

## VI Conclusions

We have discussed a simple model of a nonlinear bath, consisting of a single two-level system subject to a classical white-noise force. Its action on another two-level system has been analyzed using four different approaches. The exact evolution of the density matrix has been compared with the results obtained using a standard master equation, a linear bath (colored noise) which has been substituted for the nonlinear bath, and a weak-coupling equation. Numerical results for various special cases have been discussed. For strong system-bath coupling, the linear bath may still be a good approximation in a regime where the simple master equation already fails. This applies in particular when the bath spectrum has a strongly peaked structure. However, deviations between the linear and the original nonlinear bath are clearly visible.

It is hoped that, in a future work, also the (technically more involved) case of arbitrary finite temperature may be discussed. Further possible extensions include an analysis of the higher-order terms in the weak-coupling equation as well as replacing $`B`$ by a spin of larger magnitude, in order to observe the transition to the linear bath.

###### Acknowledgements.

We like to thank H.-A. Engel, G.-L. Ingold, D. Loss, P. Talkner, W. Zwerger, and particularly F. Meier for helpful discussions. Our work was supported by the Swiss NSF and the NCCR Nanoscience.