text:
# References

Since appearance of papers  , where it was noted that the Robertson-Bertotti geometry is maximally supersymmetric, i.e. does not break any of supersymmetries of $`N=2,d=4`$ supergravity, there appeared a number of papers discussing this and related phenomena in different systems .

In particular, it was made clear that if at special points of space-time the metric of a system is asymptotic to the Robertson-Bertotti metric, than at these points some partially broken supersymmetries can restore.

This property of the metrics imply the universality properties of black holes in supersymmetric theories: the entropy-area formula, attractor properties of a system at the points of supersymmetry restoration, etc.  and refs. therein.

In this letter we discuss these properties in the case of the string-loop-corrected dyonic black hole. In the framework of perturbative heterotic string theory compactified to $`4D`$ with $`N=2`$ supersymmetry, the prepotential of the effective low-energy theory (so-called STU model) receives only one-string-loop correction from string world sheets of torus topology . String-loop expansion parameter is $`ϵ=e^\varphi _{\mathrm{}}`$, where $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}=lim\varphi |_r\mathrm{}`$. Starting from the loop-corrected prepotential, in the first order in $`ϵ`$, we solve Killing spinor equations (conditions for supersymmetry variations of spinors to vanish). In the region of small $`r`$, near the horizon of the black hole, we obtain expressions for the metric and moduli and verify vanishing of certain objects implying restoration of supersymmetry.

$`N=1`$ supersymmetric $`6D`$ effective action of the heterotic string theory compactified to $`4D`$ on a two-torus $`T^2`$ yields $`N=2`$ locally supersymmetric theory. Bosonic part of the $`4D`$ effective action in the Einstein frame is

$$I_4=d^4x\sqrt{g}\left[R\frac{1}{2}(\varphi )^2\frac{e^\varphi }{4}(LML)+\frac{a_1}{4\sqrt{g}}L{}_{}{}^{}+\frac{1}{8}Tr(MLML)\right].$$
(1)
On the other hand, the bosonic part of the action of a $`N=2`$ locally supersymmetric theory has the form

$$I_4^{N=2}=d^4x\sqrt{g}\left[\frac{1}{2}R+(\overline{N}_{IJ}^I^JN_{IJ}^{+I}^{+J})+k_{i\overline{j}}_\mu z^i^\mu \overline{z}^j+\mathrm{}\right].$$
(2)
Here $`_{\mu \nu }^\pm =\frac{1}{2}(_{\mu \nu }\pm i\sqrt{g}{}_{}{}^{}_{\mu \nu }^{})`$, where $`{}_{}{}^{}_{\mu \nu }^{}=\frac{1}{2}e_{\mu \nu \rho \lambda }^{\rho \lambda }`$, and $`e_{\mu \nu \rho \lambda }`$ is the flat antisymmetric tensor, $`e_{0123}=1`$. The couplings $`N_{IJ}`$ are defined below, $`k_{i\overline{j}}`$ is the Kähler metric $`k_{i\overline{j}}=\frac{^2K}{z^i\overline{z}^j},`$ where $`K`$ is the Kähler potential. The tree-level moduli are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{X^1}{X^0}}=z^1=iy_1=i\left(e^\varphi +ia_1\right),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{X^2}{X^0}}=z^2=iy_2=i\left(e^{\gamma +\sigma }+ia_2\right),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{X^3}{X^0}}=z^3=iy_3=i\left(e^{\gamma \sigma }+ia_3\right)`$ (3)
Here $`\varphi `$ and $`a_1`$ are dilaton and axion, $`a_2=B_{12}`$, other moduli are identified by comparison with the metric of the two-torus

$$G_{mn}=e^{2\sigma }\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{2\gamma 2\sigma }+a_3^2& a_3\\ a_3& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(4)
In the holomorphic section which admits introduction of the prepotential, the effective action (1) can be identified with the action (2) having the prepotential of the STU model (for instance, )

$$F=\frac{X^1X^2X^3}{X^0}iϵX_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}h(i\frac{X^2}{X^0},i\frac{X^3}{X^0})+\mathrm{}.$$
(5)
At the one-loop level dilaton mixes with other moduli and

$$y_1=e^\varphi ϵ\frac{V}{2}+ia_1.$$
(6)
The Kähler potential is given by

$$K=\mathrm{ln}[(y_1+\overline{y}_1+ϵV)(y_2+\overline{y}_2)(y_3+\overline{y}_3)],$$
(7)
and is invariant under symplectic transformations. Here $`V`$ is the Green-Schwarz function $`V`$

$$V(y_2,\overline{y}_2,y_3,\overline{y}_3)=\frac{RehRey_2Re_{y_2}hRey_3Re_{y_3}h}{Rey_2Rey_3}.$$
(8)
In the section with the prepotential the gauge couplings are calculated using the formula (for instance, )

$$N_{IJ}=\overline{F}_{IJ}+2i\frac{(ImF_{IK}X^K)(ImF_{JL}X^J)}{(X^IImF_{IJ}X^J)},$$
(9)
where $`F_I=_{X^I}F,F_{IJ}=_{X^IX^J}^2F`$, etc.

In the case of black hole solutions in which we are interested in this paper, the tree-level moduli $`y_i`$ are real. Since the expressions of the first order in string coupling are calculated by substituting for the arguments the tree-level moduli, below, in cases where this does not lead to confusion, we use the same notation $`y_i`$ for the real parts of the moduli. Imaginary parts of the moduli corresponding to dyonic solution may appear in the first order in string coupling.

In the first order in string coupling constant, the gauge couplings $`N_{IJ}`$ are

$`N_{00}`$ $`=`$ $`iy^3\left(1+ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{n}{4y^3}}\right),N_{01}=ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{n+2v}{4y_1}}iϵa_1{\displaystyle \frac{y_2y_3}{y_1}},`$
$`N_{02}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{n+2v2y_2hy+4y_2h_2}{4y_2}}iϵa_2{\displaystyle \frac{y_1y_3}{y_2}},`$
$`N_{03}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{n+2v+2y_3hy+4y_3h_3}{4y_3}}iϵa_3{\displaystyle \frac{y_1y_2}{y_3}},`$
$`N_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{y^3}{y_1^2}}\left(1+ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{n}{4y^3}}\right),N_{12}=iy_3ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{2y_2hyn}{4y^3}}+ϵa_3,`$
$`N_{13}`$ $`=`$ $`iy_2ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{2y_3hyn}{4y^3}}+ϵa_2,N_{23}=iy_1ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{2yhy4y_2h_{23}y_3n}{4y^3}}+ϵa_1,`$
$`N_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{y^3}{y_2^2}}\left(1ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{y_2h_{23}y_3}{y^3}}+ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{n}{4y^3}}\right),N_{33}=i{\displaystyle \frac{y^3}{y_3^2}}\left(1ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{y_3h_{23}y_3}{y^3}}+ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{n}{4y^3}}\right).`$ (10)
Here we introduced the notations: $`y^3=y_1y_2y_3,hy=h_ay_a=h_2y_2+h_3y_3`$, $`h_a=_{y_a}h,h_{ab}=_{y_a}_{y_b}h`$ and

$$v=hy_ah_a,n=hh_ay_a+y_ah_{ab}y_b,y_2hy=y_2h_{2a}y_a.$$
(11)
The field equations and the Bianchi identities for the gauge field strengths are

$`_\mu \left(\sqrt{g}ImG_I^{\mu \nu }\right)=0`$
$`_\mu \left(\sqrt{g}Im^{J\mu \nu }\right)=0`$ (12)
where $`G_I^{\mu \nu }=\overline{N}_{IJ}^{J\mu \nu }`$. In sections which do not admit a prepotential (including that which naturally appears in compactification of the heterotic string action), the gauge couplings are obtained by making a symplectic transformation of the couplings calculated in the section with the prepotential

$$\widehat{N}=(C+DN)(A+BN)^1.$$
(13)
In the first order in string coupling, transformation from the section with the prepotential to that associated with the heterotic string compactification is performed by symplectic transformation with the matrices

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`diag(1,0,1,1)+ϵ(a_{ij}),B=diag(0,1,0,0)+ϵ(b_{ij}),`$
$`C`$ $`=`$ $`diag(0,1,0,0)+ϵ(c_{ij}),D=diag(1,0,1,1)+ϵ(d_{ij}),`$ (14)
where $`a,b,c`$ and $`d`$ are constant symmetric matrices. The form of the corrections to the tree-level matrices  is constrained by the requirement that in the heterotic section the loop corrections to the couplings are proportional to $`ϵe^\varphi `$. This results in symplectic transformation with $`a=b=0`$, $`c`$ is an arbitrary symmetric matrix with $`c_{1i}=0`$ and the only non-zero element of the matrix $`d`$ is $`d_{11}`$ .

General dyonic solution can be obtained by solving the Killing spinor equations which are conditions for the supersymmetry transformations of the chiral gravitino $`\psi _{\alpha \mu }`$ and gaugini $`\lambda ^{i\alpha }`$ to vanish (for instance, )

$`\delta \psi _{\alpha \mu }=D_\mu ϵ_\alpha T_{\mu \nu }^{}\gamma ^\nu ϵ_{\alpha \beta }ϵ^\beta =0,`$ (15)
$`\delta \lambda _\alpha ^i=i\gamma ^\mu _\mu z^iϵ^\alpha +G_{\mu \nu }^i\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu ϵ^{\alpha \beta }ϵ_\beta =0,`$ (16)
where

$$D_\mu ϵ_\alpha =(_\mu \frac{1}{4}w_\mu ^{\widehat{a}\widehat{b}}\gamma _{\widehat{a}}\gamma _{\widehat{b}}+\frac{i}{2}Q_\mu )ϵ_\alpha .$$

Here $`w_\mu ^{\widehat{a}\widehat{b}}`$ and $`Q_\mu `$ are the spin and Kähler connections, and one introduces symplectic invariants

$`S_{\mu \nu }=X^IImN_{IJ}_{\mu \nu }^J,T_{\mu \nu }^{}=2ie^{K/2}S_{\mu \nu },`$ (17)
$`G_{\mu \nu }^i=k^{i\overline{j}}\overline{f}_{\overline{j}}^IImN_{IJ}_{\mu \nu }^J.`$ (18)
Here $`k^{i\overline{j}}`$ is the inverse Kähler metric, and

$$f_i^I=(_i+\frac{1}{2}_iK)e^{K/2}X^I.$$

In the case of a stationary spherically-symmetric solutions with the metric

$$ds^2=e^{2U(r)}(dt+w_m(r)x^m)^2+e^{2U(r)}(dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2),$$
(19)
The $`\mu =0`$ component of the gravitini Killing spinor equation can be presented as

$$w_0^{\widehat{a}\widehat{b}}\gamma _{\widehat{a}}\gamma _{\widehat{b}}ϵ_\alpha e^UT_{0n}^{}\gamma _{\widehat{n}}ϵ_{\alpha \beta }ϵ^\beta =0$$
(20)
Here the indices with hats refer to the tangent space basis. Assuming the Ansatz for a constraint on the supersymmetry parameter $`ϵ^\alpha =\gamma _{\widehat{0}}ϵ^{\alpha \beta }ϵ_\beta `$ (cf. ), separating the coefficient at the spinor structure and taking the real part of the resulting equation, we have

$$\frac{1}{4}_ne^{2U}e^UReT_{0n}^{}=0,$$
(21)
where we used that $`w_0^{\widehat{0}\widehat{b}}=\frac{1}{2}_be^{2U}`$. Substituting the Ansatz in gaugini Killing equation, we obtain

$$\left(ie^U_nz^i4G_{0n}^i\right)\gamma ^{\widehat{0}}\gamma ^{\widehat{n}}ϵ^{\alpha \beta }ϵ_\beta =0.$$
(22)
Contracting Eq.(22) with the functions $`f_i^I`$, we have

$$if_i^I_nz^ie^U+4\left(\frac{1}{2}_{0n}^I+e^K\overline{X}^IS_{0n}\right)=0.$$
(23)
Using the relations of special $`N=2`$ geometry, Eqs.(23) can be recast in the form which contains $`G_{I\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}n}^{}`$ and $`\overline{F}_I`$. Contracting Eq.(23) with $`\overline{F}_I`$ and using identities

$$^I\overline{F}_I=G_I^{}\overline{X}^I,\overline{F}_If_i^I=\overline{X}^Ig_{Ii},$$

where $`g_{Ii}=(_i+\frac{1}{2}_iK)e^{K/2}F_I`$, which follow from definitions of $`f_i^I`$ and $`G_{I\mu \nu }`$, we have

$$\overline{X}^Ig_{Ii}_nz^i+4e^U\left(\frac{1}{2}G_{I\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}n}^{}\overline{X}^I+e^K\overline{F}_I\overline{X}^IS_{0n}\right)=0.$$

Removing the functions $`\overline{X}^I`$, we obtain the symmetric equation

$$g_{Ii}_nz^i+4e^U\left(\frac{1}{2}G_{I\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}n}+e^K\overline{F}_IS_{0n}\right)=0.$$
(24)
Substituting the gravitino equation, Eqs.(23) and (24) are presented as (cf. )

$`2_{0n}^I=i\left[e^U_n(e^{K/2}X^I)(e^{K/2}\overline{X}^I)_ne^U\right]+2ImT_{0n}^{}e^{K/2}\overline{X}^IIm(_iK_ny_i)e^{K/2+U}X^I,`$ (25)
$`2G_{I\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}n}^{}=i\left[e^U_n(e^{K/2}F_I)(e^{K/2}\overline{F}_I)_ne^U\right]+2ImT_{0n}^{}e^{K/2}\overline{F}_IIm(_iK_ny_i)e^{K/2+U}F_I.`$ (26)
Here we used the equality $`_iK_nz^i=\frac{1}{2}_nK+iIm(_iK_nz^i)`$. Eqs.(25) and (26) are not independent, but one set can be obtained from the other. One can also take some equations from the first set, and the remaining equations from the second.

Let us solve Eqs.(25) and (26). We consider a tree-level dyonic black hole solution with vanishing axionic parts, i.e. the tree-level moduli $`y_i`$ are real. Axions $`a_i=Imy_i`$ can appear at higher orders in $`ϵ`$. The holomorphic section associated with the heterotic string compactification is

$$(\widehat{X}^I,\widehat{F}_I)=(1,y_2y_3,iy_2,iy_3;iy_1y_2y_3,iy_1,y_1y_3ϵh_2,y_1y_2ϵh_3).$$
(27)
The tree-level dyonic solution contains two magnetic and two electric fields with strengths

$${}_{}{}^{}\widehat{}_{0r}^{0}=\frac{P^0}{\sqrt{g^{}}},{}_{}{}^{}\widehat{}_{0r}^{1}=\frac{P^1}{\sqrt{g^{}}}$$
(28)
and

$$\widehat{}_{0r}^2=\frac{Q_2}{\sqrt{g^{}}Im\widehat{N}_{22}},\widehat{}_{0r}^3=\frac{Q_3}{\sqrt{g^{}}Im\widehat{N}_{33}},$$
(29)
where $`\sqrt{g^{}}=e^{2U}r^2`$ and the gauge couplings are

$$\widehat{N}_{00}=iy_1y_2y_3,\widehat{N}_{11}=i\frac{y_1}{y_2y_3},\widehat{N}_{22}=i\frac{y_1y_3}{y_2},\widehat{N}_{33}=i\frac{y_1y_2}{y_3}.$$

Since the tree-level moduli are real, $`Im(_iK_nz^i)=O(ϵ^2)`$. Taking imaginary parts of Eqs.(25) for $`I=0,1`$ and Eqs.(26) for $`I=2,3`$, we obtain

$`\sqrt{g}{}_{}{}^{}\widehat{}_{0n}^{I}=e^{2U}_n\left(e^{K/2U}Re\widehat{X}^I\right)+O(ϵ^2),`$ (30)
$`\sqrt{g}{}_{}{}^{}\widehat{G}_{I\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}n}^{}=e^{2U}_n\left(e^{K/2U}Re\widehat{F}_I\right)+O(ϵ^2).`$ (31)
Substituting (28) and (29) in the system (30) and (31), we obtain the equations

$$\frac{P^0}{r^2}=\left(e^{K/2U}\right)^{},\frac{P^1}{r^2}=\left(e^{K/2U}y_2y_3\right)^{}$$
(32)
and

$$\frac{Q_2}{r^2}=\left(e^{K/2U}y_1y_3\right)^{},\frac{Q_3}{r^2}=\left(e^{K/2U}y_1y_2\right)^{}$$
(33)
with the tree-level solutions (cf. )

$`e^{2U_0}={\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{(H^0H^1H_2H_3)^{1/2}}},y_{1(0)}e^{\varphi _0}f_0^1=\left({\displaystyle \frac{H_2H_3}{H^0H^1}}\right)^{1/2},`$ (34)
$`y_{2(0)}e^{\gamma _0+\sigma _0}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{H^1H_3}{H^0H_2}}\right)^{1/2},y_{3(0)}e^{\gamma _0\sigma _0}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{H^1H_2}{H^0H_3}}\right)^{1/2}.`$
where

$$H^0=\sqrt{8}P^0+ar,H^1=\sqrt{8}P^1+a^1r,H_2=\sqrt{8}Q_2+br,H_3=\sqrt{8}Q_3+b^1r.$$
(35)
The constants are constrained by the requirement that solution is asymptotically flat.

From the tree-level solutions it follows that expressions $`_nz^i`$ are finite and the functions $`G_{\mu \nu }^i`$ vanish in the limit $`r0`$. Introducing new variable, $`\rho =\frac{1}{r}`$, one obtains a conformally flat form of the metric in the limit $`\rho \mathrm{}`$. As follows from the above, in this limit the derivatives of the moduli $`_\rho z^i`$ vanish. Due to vanishing of the function $`e^U`$ in the limit $`r0`$, all the terms in gravitini and gaugini equations vanish separately and yield no restrictions on supersymmetry parameter (cf. ), i.e. at this point supersymmetry is restored.

In papers  it was shown that in general case of string tree-level dyonic black hole, nonzero total electric and magnetic charges yield constraints, each preserving $`1/2`$ of the supersymmetry unbroken (so that general dyonic configuration preserves $`1/4`$ of the supersymmetry unbroken). This result is not in contradiction with the restoration of supersymmetry at the horizon, because the constraints are obtained from Killing spinor equations which contain the metric component $`e^{2U}`$. At the horizon, the terms multiplied by the metric component $`e^{2U}`$ vanish, and there appear no relations leading to constraints.

Let us turn to the loop-corrected dyonic solution. The functions $`\varphi ,\gamma `$ and $`\sigma `$ which enter the moduli (3) and the function $`2U`$ in metric are split into the tree-level parts $`\varphi _0,\gamma _0,\sigma _0,2U_0`$ and the parts of the first order in string coupling: $`\varphi =\varphi _0+ϵ\varphi _1,\mathrm{},2U=2U_0+ϵu_1`$. With the required accuracy, the Kähler potential is

$$e^K=\frac{f_0e^{2\gamma _0}}{8}\left[1+ϵ\left(\varphi _12\gamma _1\right)\right].$$
(36)
In the first order in string coupling, taking into account that the terms of the main order in string coupling cancel, Eqs.(30) with $`I=0,1`$ yield

$`\left(\varphi _1u_12\gamma _1\right)^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\varphi _02U_02\gamma _0)^{}\left(\varphi _1u_12\gamma _1\right)=0,`$ (37)
$`\left(\varphi _1u_1+2\gamma _1\right)^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\varphi _02U_0+2\gamma _0)^{}\left(\varphi _1u_1+2\gamma _1\right)=0.`$
From this system we find that in the limit $`r0`$ both functions $`\gamma _1`$ and $`\varphi _1u_1`$ vanish as $`O(r)`$. Substituting the loop-corrected expressions $`\widehat{F}_2=y_1y_3ϵh_2`$ and $`\widehat{F}_3=y_1y_2ϵh_3`$ and introducing $`L_2=ϵh_2y_2e^{2\gamma _0}`$ and $`L_3=ϵh_3y_3e^{2\gamma _0}`$, we reduce the second pair of equations (31) to the form

$`\left(\varphi _1+u_1+2\sigma _1+(V+2L_2)f_0\right)^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\sigma _0+U_0+{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _0}{2}}\right)^{}\left(\varphi _1+u_1+2\sigma _1+(V+2L_2)f_0\right)=0,`$ (38)
$`\left(\varphi _1+u_12\sigma _1+(V+2L_3)f_0\right)^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\sigma _0+U_0+{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _0}{2}}\right)^{}\left(\varphi _1+u_12\sigma _1+(V+2L_3)f_0\right)=0.`$
From these equations, in the limit $`r0`$ we find

$$\varphi _1=u_1=Hf_0(0)=\frac{h(y_{2(0)},y_{3(0)})}{2y_{1(0)}y_{2(0)}y_{3(0)}}|_{r=0}=\frac{h(y_{2(0)},y_{3(0)})}{2}|_{r=0}\left(\frac{P_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{3}}{P^1Q_2Q_3}\right)^{1/2}$$
(39)
and

$$\sigma _1=\frac{1}{2}(L_3L_2)|_{r=0}\left(\frac{P^0P^1}{Q_2Q_3}\right)^{1/2}+O(r).$$
(40)
Here we introduced

$$H=\frac{V+L}{2}|_{r=0}=\frac{h(y_{2(0)},y_{3(0)})}{2y_{2(0)}y_{3(0)}}|_{r=0},L=\frac{L_2+L_3}{2}.$$
(41)
Let us consider solution of the gaugini Killing spinor equations written in an alternative form (23). At the tree level, substituting explicit expressions for the field strengths (28) and (29) and solutions for the moduli (S0.Ex15), we find that in the limit $`r0`$ all the combinations $`\left(\frac{1}{2}\widehat{}_{0n}^I+e^K\overline{\widehat{X}}^IS_{0n}\right)`$ vanish implying that $`_ny_i|_{r0}`$, are finite and $`G_{\mu \nu }^i`$ vanish. Vanishing of of the tensor $`G_{\mu \nu }^i`$ together with Bertotti-Robinson form of the metric near the point $`r=0`$ ensure vanishing of the Weyl tensor and conformal invariance of the theory in this region.

Keeping the terms of the main and the first orders in string coupling, the Maxwell equations

$$_\mu (\sqrt{g}Im\widehat{N}_{IJ}\widehat{}^J+Re\widehat{N}_{IJ}{}_{}{}^{}\widehat{}_{}^{J})^{\mu \nu }=0.$$

written in the heterotic holomorphic section are

$`_r[\sqrt{g}(Im\widehat{N}_{00}\widehat{}^0+Im\widehat{N}_{02}\widehat{}^2+Im\widehat{N}_{03}\widehat{}^3)+Re\widehat{N}_{00}{}_{}{}^{}\widehat{}_{}^{0}+Re\widehat{N}_{01}{}_{}{}^{}\widehat{}_{}^{1}]^{0r}=0`$
$`_r[\sqrt{g}(Im\widehat{N}_{11}\widehat{}^1+Im\widehat{N}_{12}\widehat{}^2+Im\widehat{N}_{13}\widehat{}^3)+Re\widehat{N}_{10}{}_{}{}^{}\widehat{}_{}^{0}+Re\widehat{N}_{11}{}_{}{}^{}\widehat{}_{}^{1}]^{0r}=0`$ (42)
$`_r[\sqrt{g}(Im\widehat{N}_{22}\widehat{}^2+Im\widehat{N}_{23}\widehat{}^3)+Re\widehat{N}_{20}{}_{}{}^{}\widehat{}_{}^{0}+Re\widehat{N}_{21}{}_{}{}^{}\widehat{}_{}^{1}]^{0r}=0`$
$`_r[\sqrt{g}(Im\widehat{N}_{33}\widehat{}^2+Im\widehat{N}_{32}\widehat{}^2)+Re\widehat{N}_{30}{}_{}{}^{}\widehat{}_{}^{0}+Re\widehat{N}_{31}{}_{}{}^{}\widehat{}_{}^{1}]^{0r}=0.`$ (43)
Only the diagonal gauge couplings $`\widehat{N}_{II}`$ contain the parts of the main order in string coupling. The field strengths $`\widehat{}_{0r}^{0,1}`$, absent at the tree level, are of the first order in string coupling. Solving the Maxwell equations in the holomorphic section associated with the heterotic string compactification with the gauge couplings $`\widehat{N}_{IJ}`$ calculated from the couplings (9) by using the transformations (13), (14), we obtain

$`\widehat{}^{\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}0}r}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q_0a_1P^1a_aQ_a}{\sqrt{g^{}}Im\widehat{N}_{00}}},`$ (44)
$`\widehat{}^{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}0}r}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q_1a_1P^0+a_3Q_2/y_3^2+a_2Q_3/y_2^2}{\sqrt{g^{}}Im\widehat{N}_{11}}},`$ (45)
$`\widehat{}^{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}0}r}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Q_2Re\widehat{N}_{20}P^0Re\widehat{N}_{21}P^1\frac{ImN_{23}}{ImN_{33}}Q_3}{\sqrt{g^{}}Im\widehat{N}_{22}}},`$ (46)
$`\widehat{}^{\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}0}r}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Q_3Re\widehat{N}_{30}P^0Re\widehat{N}_{31}P^1\frac{ImN_{32}}{ImN_{22}}Q_2}{\sqrt{g^{}}ImN_{33}}}.`$ (47)
Substituting the field strengths (44)-(47), we have

$`S_{0n}=\{[P^0(ImN_{00}+y_iReN_{i0})P^1y_1(Q_2y_2+Q_3y_3)]`$ (48)
$`iϵ[P^0(a_1y_2y_3+a_2y_1y_3+a_3y_1y_2)+a_aQ_a+a_1P^1q_0q_1y_2y_3)]\}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}e^{2U}{\displaystyle \frac{x^n}{r^3}}`$
Because Killing spinor equations are linear in derivatives of the moduli, in the first order in string coupling the equations for the real and imaginary parts of the moduli decouple. To obtain the loop corrections to the dilaton $`\varphi `$ and the metric component $`e^{2U}`$ as well as to the metric of the two-torus $`G_{mn}`$ it is sufficient to solve the Killing spinor equations for the real parts of the moduli. At this stage, the imaginary parts of the moduli can be neglected.

The combinations $`f_i^I_nz^i`$ which enter Eqs.(23) are

$$f_i^0_nz^=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{8}}e^{1/2(\varphi _02\gamma _0)}(\varphi _0^{}2\gamma _0^{})\left[1+ϵ\frac{\varphi _1^{}2\gamma _1^{}}{\varphi _0^{}2\gamma _0^{}}+\frac{ϵ}{2}\left(\varphi _12\gamma _1\right)\right]\frac{x^n}{r},$$
(49)
and

$$f_i^1_nz^=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{8}}e^{1/2(\varphi _0+2\gamma _0)}(\varphi _0^{}+2\gamma _0^{})\left[1+ϵ\frac{\varphi _1^{}+2\gamma _1^{}}{\varphi _0^{}+2\gamma _0^{}}+\frac{ϵ}{2}\left(\varphi _1+2\gamma _1\right)\right]\frac{x^n}{r}.$$
(50)
Other combinations are $`f_n^i_nz^i=iy_i(f_n^0+e^{K/2}_ny_a)`$, where $`i=1,2,3`$. The expression $`e^KS_{0n}`$ in Eqs.(23) can be presented as <sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2More exactly, here we consider gaugini Killing spinor equations for the real parts of the moduli, i.e. for $`S_{0n}`$ we take the first (real) term in curly brackets in (48). Imaginary parts of the moduli will be discussed separately.

$$e^KS_{0n}=\left(1ϵ\frac{Vf_0}{2}\right)(S_0+ϵS_1)\frac{i}{16\sqrt{g^{}}}\frac{x^n}{r},$$
(51)
where

$$S_0=P^0+P^1e^{2\gamma _0}+Q_2e^{\varphi _0\gamma _0+\sigma _0}+Q_3e^{\varphi _0\gamma _0\sigma _0}$$
(52)
and

$`S_1=P^02(V+L)f_0+P^1e^{2\gamma _0}(2\gamma _1)`$ (53)
$`+Q_2e^{\varphi _0\gamma _0+\sigma _0}\left(\varphi _1\gamma _1+\sigma _1+{\displaystyle \frac{Vf_0}{2}}\right)+Q_3e^{\varphi _0\gamma _0\sigma _0}\left(\varphi _1\gamma _1\sigma _1+{\displaystyle \frac{Vf_0}{2}}\right).`$
Substituting the above expressions, we obtain the gaugini Killing equations (23) with $`I=0,1`$ in the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _1^{}2\gamma _1^{}}{\varphi _0^{}2\gamma _0^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\varphi _12\gamma _1u_1\right){\displaystyle \frac{S_1S_0\frac{Vf_0}{2}}{4P^0S_0}}=0,`$ (54)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _1^{}+2\gamma _1^{}}{\varphi _0^{}+2\gamma _0^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\varphi _1+2\gamma _1u_1\right){\displaystyle \frac{S_1S_0\frac{Vf_0}{2}}{4P^1H^0/H^1S_0}}=0.`$
At small $`r`$ we have

$$S_0=4P^0+2P^0r(\varphi _0^{}2\gamma _0^{})(0)+O(r^2)$$
(55)
and

$$S_1=2P^0(\varphi _12\gamma _1+Hf_0)(0)+O(r).$$
(56)
Eqs.(54) split into the following system

$`\gamma _1^{}+2\gamma _0^{}(\varphi _1u_1)+2\varphi _0^{}\gamma _1=0,`$ (57)
$`\varphi _1^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _0^{}}{2}}(\varphi _1u_1)+2\gamma _0^{}\gamma _1{\displaystyle \frac{S_1S_0\frac{Vf_0}{2}}{4P^0S_0}}=0`$
Substituting (55) and (56) and noting that the functions $`\varphi _1`$ and $`u_1`$ are finite at the origin, and $`\gamma _1`$ is of order $`O(r)`$, at small $`r`$ we reduce the second equation (57) to the form

$$\varphi _1^{}\frac{\varphi _1}{r}\frac{H(0)f_0}{r}=0$$
(58)
Similar transformations of the gravitini equation yield

$$\frac{u_1^{}}{2U_0^{}}\frac{u_1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}(\varphi _12\gamma _1u_1)\frac{S_1S_0\frac{Vf_0}{2}}{4P^0S_0}=0,$$
(59)
At small $`r\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}2}U_0^{}=\frac{2}{r}+O(1)`$, and the gravitini Killing equation takes the same form as (58)

$$u_1^{}\frac{u_1}{r}\frac{H(0)f_0}{r}=0.$$
(60)
Solving Eqs.(58) and (60), we reproduce the solution (39). In the same way we obtain the above solutions for $`\gamma _1`$ and $`\sigma _1`$.

Let us consider the equations for imaginary parts $`a_i`$ of the moduli $`y_i=Rey_i+ia_i`$. The functions $`a_i`$ are zero at the tree level, and can appear in the first order in string coupling. Below, in the equations for $`a_i`$, the moduli $`Rey_i`$ appear only in the main order, and again we keep notations $`y_i`$ for the real parts of the moduli. Contracting gaugini Killing Eq.(22) with the metric $`k_{i\overline{j}}`$, introducing $`T_{I0r}ImN_{IJ}_{0r}^J`$ and separating the imaginary part of the resulting equation, we have

$$k_{\overline{j}i}a_i^{}+4e^UIm(\overline{f}_{\overline{j}}^IT_I)=0.$$
(61)
Introducing $`\stackrel{~}{q}_1=q_1e^{2\gamma _0}`$, ($`y_{2(0)}y_{3(0)}=e^{2\gamma _0}`$, see (S0.Ex15)) with the required accuracy, Eqs.(61) are written as

$`a_1^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{4e^{U+K/2}y_1}{r^2}}\left[q_0+\stackrel{~}{q}_1a_1P^1a_aQ_a+P^0(a_1y_2y_3+a_2y_1y_3+a_3y_1y_2)\right]=0,`$
$`a_2^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{4e^{U+K/2}y_2}{r^2}}\left[q_0\stackrel{~}{q}_1a_1P^1a_aQ_a+\widehat{P}^0(+a_1y_2y_3a_2y_1y_3+a_3y_1y_2)\right]=0,`$
$`a_3^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{4e^{U+K/2}y_3}{r^2}}\left[q_0\stackrel{~}{q}_1a_1P^1a_aQ_a+P^0(+a_1y_2y_3+a_2y_1y_3a_3y_1y_2)\right]=0.`$ (62)
Here all the functions $`y_i,U`$ and $`K`$ are taken in the main order in string coupling. Let us introduce the functions $`b_i=a_i/y_i`$. All the coefficients at the functions $`b_i`$ in Eqs.(S0.Ex25) rewritten through the functions $`b_i`$ in the limit $`r=0`$ coincide and are equal to $`\left(\frac{P^1Q_2Q_3}{P^0}\right)^{1/2}\alpha `$, and the expression $`\frac{4e^{U+K/2}}{r^2}`$ at small $`r`$ is $`\frac{\sqrt{2}}{r\alpha }`$. In the limit of small $`r`$, we obtain the system (S0.Ex25) in the form

$`b_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}+b_1{\displaystyle \frac{y_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}}{y_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{r\alpha }}[q_0+\stackrel{~}{q}_12\alpha b_1+O(r)]=0,`$ (63)
$`b_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}+b_2{\displaystyle \frac{y_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}}{y_2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{r\alpha }}[q_0\stackrel{~}{q}_12\alpha b_2+O(r)]=0,`$
$`b_{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{}+b_3{\displaystyle \frac{y_{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{}}{y_3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{r\alpha }}[q_0\stackrel{~}{q}_12\alpha b_3+O(r)]=0.`$
with a solution

$`b_1={\displaystyle \frac{q_0+\stackrel{~}{q}_1}{2\alpha }}+c_1r+O(r^2),`$ (64)
$`b_a={\displaystyle \frac{q_0\stackrel{~}{q}_1}{2\alpha }}+c_ar+O(r^2),a=2,3.`$
where $`c_i`$ are arbitrary constants.

Using the above asymptotics of the axions, we can consider stationarity properties of the loop-corrected solution. Taking the imaginary part of the gravitini spinor Killing equation (20), we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{}_{}{}^{}w_{0}^{\widehat{0}\widehat{n}}\gamma ^{\widehat{0}}\gamma ^{\widehat{n}}ϵ_\alpha +e^UImT_{0n}^{}\gamma ^{\widehat{0}}\gamma ^{\widehat{n}}ϵ_{\alpha \beta }ϵ^\beta =0,`$ (65)
where $`{}_{}{}^{}w_{0}^{\widehat{0}\widehat{n}}=\frac{1}{2}e^{\widehat{n}\widehat{p}\widehat{q}}(_pw_q_qw_p)`$ and $`ImT_{0n}^{}=2Ree^{K/2}S_{0n}`$ with $`S_{0n}`$ from (48). In the limit of small $`r`$ we have $`ImT=O(r^0)`$ and $`e^UImT=O(r)`$ implying vanishing of the functions $`w_n`$ in this limit and stationarity of solution. Also, suitably adjusting the free constants in (64), the asymptotic (physical) charges of the electric fields $`\widehat{}^0`$ and $`\widehat{}^1`$ can be made vanishing.

To conclude, general loop-corrected dilatonic black holes with four charges, as the tree-level solutions, at the horizon display restoration of $`N=2`$ supersymmetry. The metric in the near-horizon region becomes of the Robinson-Bertotti type. This result is natural, provided perturbation theory does not violate supersymmetry.

Acknowledgments

This work was partially supported by the RFFR grant No 02-02-16444.


format: text

text:
# Generalized model-independent approach to intrinsic decoherence

## Abstract

A formalism is presented to express decoherence both in the markovian and nonmarkovian regimes and both dissipative and nondissipative in isolated systems. The main physical hypothesis, already contained in the literature Mil91a ; BonOliTomVit00a , amounts to allowing some internal parameters of the system to evolve in a random fashion. This formalism may also be applicable to open quantum systems.

Decoherence, Markovianity, Dissipation, Randomness

Decoherence is at the heart of the destruction of quantum superpositions in most physical systems. Its role is basic in questions such as the quantum-classical transition Zur91a , the realization of quantum computation or the quantum processing of information ChuNie00a . From a quantitative point of view the effect of decoherence is commonly described by the action of the environment upon the physical system of interest GiuJooKieKupStaZeh96a ; Zur82a . This view inevitably depends on the chosen modelization of this environment. Recently BonOliTomVit00a  (see also Bon99a ) a model-independent approach to decoherence has been initiated based on the hypothesis of randomness of some of the internal parameters of the system, thus reducing the role of the environment. Here we present a triple generalization of this model-independent approach which allows us to find more general master equations both in the markovian and in the nonmarkovian regimes111As usual, markovianity is understood in the sense of an evolution which satisfies a semigroup condition. and both dissipative and nondissipative.

Randomness in an isolated system is introduced by claiming that the evolution time is a stochastic parameter BonOliTomVit00a ; Bon99a  (previous references in this respect are Mil91a ; MoyBuzKimKni93a ). This physical hypothesis is implemented by noticing that the experimental observations are described by the time-averaged density operator, as expressed by the relation

$$\overline{\rho }(t)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t^{}P(t,t^{})\rho (t^{})$$
(1)
where $`P(t,t^{})`$ denotes the probability density associated with the random time $`t^{}`$ and $`\rho (t^{})`$ denotes the usual quantum density operator. To find an expression for $`P(t,t^{})`$ two conditions are imposed BonOliTomVit00a : i) $`\overline{\rho }(t)`$ must be a density operator itself; ii) the evolution of $`\overline{\rho }(t)`$ must be markovian. Under these assumptions and using the integral definition of the Gamma function, one arrives at a fixed probability density $`P(t,t^{})`$ (up to two parameters) and thus at a fixed time-averaged density operator $`\overline{\rho }(t)`$. Here we drop condition ii), thus comprising nonmarkovian evolutions and moreover using different tools we also allow for distinct markovian situations. The nonmarkovian regime is interesting in its own since it is the rigorous type of dynamics (prior to approximations) followed by a physical system coupled to an environment AlickiLendi87a ; GorFriVerKosSud78a . Furthermore the experimental advances in mesoscopic scales (for instance, in creating atom lasers with Bose-Einstein condensates MoyHopSav98a ) also demands a better understanding of this regime. The generality obtained also allows us to embrace dissipative decoherence in contrast to BonOliTomVit00a ; Mil91a .

The idea is to express the evolution operator $`U(t)`$ using the spectral decomposition theorem for unitary operators Kreyszig78a  and then introduce the randomness in the time evolution. Let us recall then that

$$U(t)=_\pi ^\pi e^{i\theta t}𝑑E_\theta $$
(2)
where $`E_\theta `$ is the spectral family on $`[\pi ,\pi ]`$ associated to $`U(t)`$. The randomness hypothesis can be introduced in different ways. The most naïve way is just to substitute $`t`$ in expression (2) for a random variable $`\chi _t`$ which expresses the stochastic nature of the evolution. The properties of $`\chi _t`$ (distribution, moments, …) will depend on the characteristics of the physical system under study. To grasp this generality it is convenient to consider $`\chi _t`$ as the solution to an Ito stochastic differential equation Oksendal98a :

$$d\chi _t=b(t,\chi _t)dt+\sigma (t,\chi _t)d_t$$
(3)
where $`b(,)`$ and $`\sigma (,)`$ are real functions of two real variables and $`_t`$ denotes standard real brownian motion. These two functions encode the information of the specific physical system. As a first example we may consider $`b(t,\chi _t)=1`$ and $`\sigma (t,\chi _t)=\sigma (t)`$ (with clear abuse of notation). This allows us to write $`\chi _t=t+_0^t\sigma (s)𝑑_s`$, hence the expectation value of $`\chi _t`$ is the standard deterministic time $`t`$ and its deviation from it is given by $`\lambda (t)_0^t\sigma ^2(s)𝑑s`$. This can be considered a weak-coupling-like limit. With these hypotheses, we may construct a random evolution operator given by

$$U_{\text{rand}}(t)=_\pi ^\pi e^{i\theta ti\theta _0^t\sigma (s)𝑑_s}𝑑E_\theta $$
(4)
Following BonOliTomVit00a  the density operator describing experimental results will be given by

$$\overline{\rho }(t)=𝔼[\rho (t)]=𝔼[U_{\text{rand}}(t)\rho (0)U_{\text{rand}}^{}(t)]$$
(5)
where $`𝔼`$ denotes expectation value with respect to the probability distribution of $`\chi _t`$. Using Ito calculus Oksendal98a , the expectation value $`𝔼[e^{i(\theta \theta ^{})_0^t\sigma _s𝑑_s}]=e^{\frac{\lambda (t)}{2}(\theta \theta ^{})^2}`$ can be readily found and hence one immediately arrives at the following expression for $`\overline{\rho }(t)`$

$$\overline{\rho }(t)=e^{it_H\frac{\lambda (t)}{2}_H^2}[\rho (0)]$$
(6)
where $`_H[H,]`$ is the commutator with the hamiltonian $`H`$. Note that this equation automatically satisfies condition i) above, i.e. $`\overline{\rho }(t)`$ is a density operator (it is selfadjoint, it has trace one and it is positive) provided the initial $`\rho (0)`$ is a density operator too. This is a first generalization of the results obtained in BonOliTomVit00a . If condition ii) is imposed, then the only choice for $`\sigma (t)`$ will be $`\sigma (t)=\gamma ^{1/2}`$, i.e. a constant. The master equation is the well-known phase-destroying master equation

$$\dot{\overline{\rho }}(t)=i[H,\overline{\rho }(t)]\frac{\gamma }{2}[H,[H,\overline{\rho }(t)]]$$
(7)
Note that no approximation has been assumed to arrive at this equation, in contrast to BonOliTomVit00a ; Mil91a . The constant $`\gamma `$ is thus under this formalism a measure of the deviation from strictly determinist time evolution. Apart from the evident freedom in the choice of adequately physically motivated choices of functions $`b(,)`$ and $`\sigma (,)`$ (which e.g. may drive us to time-dependent $`\gamma (t)`$), a higher generalization can be achieved if the previous scheme is slightly changed by substituting the whole phase of the exponential in (2) for a $`\theta `$-dependent random variable $`\chi _t(\theta )`$. This allows us to write the random evolution operator instead as

$$U_{\text{rand}}(t)=_\pi ^\pi e^{i\chi _t(\theta )}𝑑E_\theta $$
(8)
The former scheme is a particular case of this latter when $`\chi _t(\theta )=\theta \chi _t`$. The physical meaning behind this formalism is clear: the random time evolution does not affect on an equal footing to all energy levels of the system. Following then the same idea as above, we consider $`\chi _t(t)`$ as a solution to an Ito SDE, now $`\theta `$-dependent

$$d\chi _t(\theta )=b(t,\chi _t(\theta );\theta )dt+\sigma (t,\chi _t(\theta );\theta )d_t(\theta )$$
(9)
i.e., now we have a SDE for each energy level. This must be supplemented with correlation properties among the brownian motions at different $`\theta `$’s. These will be expressed through the relation

$$d_t(\theta )d_t(\theta ^{})=g(t;\theta ,\theta ^{})dt$$
(10)
where $`g(t;\theta ,\theta ^{})`$ is basically for each $`t`$ a covariance function expressing the correlations among different $`_t(\theta )`$’s. From a physical standpoint it is clear that $`g(t;\theta ,\theta ^{})=g(t;\theta ^{},\theta )`$ and since we are dealing with standard brownian motions $`|g(t;\theta ,\theta ^{})|1`$ for all $`t,\theta ,\theta ^{}`$.

It is difficult to proceed forward without making some assumptions. One may on one hand discuss on physical grounds particular choices for the different functions involved and find the solution or on the other hand look for general analytical properties which drives us to a sufficiently global situation. As before, as a first example, let us assign simple choices to $`b(t,\chi _t(\theta );\theta )=h(\theta )`$ and $`\sigma (t,\chi _t(\theta );\theta )=\sigma (t;\theta )`$. The former corresponds to the fact that the unitary part of the dynamics is driven by a renormalized hamiltonian CalLeg83a , as the following calculation shows; whereas the second states that the departure from deterministic evolution is caused by an uncorrelated noise with different intensity at different times for each $`\theta `$. Let us include some details. We have to evaluate the expression:

$$\overline{\rho }(t)=_\pi ^\pi _\pi ^\pi e^{i(h(\theta )h(\theta ^{}))t}𝔼[e^{i\left(_0^t\sigma (s;\theta )𝑑_s(\theta )_0^t\sigma (s;\theta ^{})𝑑_s(\theta ^{})\right)}]𝑑E_\theta \rho (0)𝑑E_\theta ^{}$$
(11)
The expectation value is found using standard techniques. Define the stochastic process $`X_t(\theta ,\theta ^{})`$ by the SDE $`dX_t(\theta ,\theta ^{})=\sigma (t;\theta )d_t(\theta )\sigma (t;\theta ^{})d_t(\theta ^{})`$; express $`\mathrm{exp}(iX_t(\theta ,\theta ^{}))`$ as a power series; apply the Ito formula (cf. Oksendal98a ) to $`f(X_t)`$ ($`f(z)=z^n`$); define $`\beta _n(t;\theta ,\theta ^{})𝔼[X_t^n(\theta ,\theta ^{})]`$ to find

$`\beta _{2n}(t;\theta ,\theta ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2n)!}{2^nn!}}\lambda ^n(t;\theta ,\theta ^{})`$ (12a)
$`\beta _{2n+1}(t;\theta ,\theta ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (12b)
where $`\lambda (t;\theta ,\theta ^{})_0^t\eta (s;\theta ,\theta ^{})𝑑s`$ and we have defined $`\eta (t;\theta ,\theta ^{})=\sigma ^2(t;\theta )g(t;\theta ,\theta )+\sigma ^2(t;\theta ^{})g(t;\theta ^{},\theta ^{})2\sigma (t;\theta )\sigma (t;\theta ^{})g(t;\theta ,\theta ^{})`$. Finally resum the series and then (11) reduces to

$$\overline{\rho }(t)=_\pi ^\pi _\pi ^\pi e^{it(h(\theta )h(\theta ^{}))}e^{\frac{\lambda (t;\theta ,\theta ^{})}{2}}𝑑E_\theta \rho (0)𝑑E_\theta ^{}$$
(13)
We cannot proceed further without specifying $`\sigma (t;\theta )`$ and $`g(t;\theta ,\theta ^{})`$. To compare with the previous scheme let us define $`\sigma (t;\theta )=\gamma ^{1/2}\theta `$ and assume a correlation function $`g(t;\theta ,\theta ^{})=\mathrm{exp}(\tau ^2(\theta \theta ^{})^2)`$. Here $`\tau ^1`$ roughly measures the distance of correlation in some arbitrary units. Then $`\lambda (t;\theta ,\theta ^{})=\gamma t(\theta ^2+\theta ^{}_{}{}^{}22\theta \theta ^{}e^{\tau ^2(\theta \theta ^{})^2})`$ and the master equation reads

$`\dot{\overline{\rho }}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`i[h(H),\overline{\rho }(t)]`$ (14)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}(H^2\overline{\rho }(t)+\overline{\rho }(t)H^22He^{\tau ^2_H^2}[\overline{\rho }(t)]H)`$
This is a CP markovian master equation222To convince oneself that this denotes a CP evolution, compare with eq. (4.1) in Lin76 . different from (7), though it reduces to it in the limit $`\tau 0`$, i.e. in the case of infinite-range correlations (all energy levels equally affected by the random evolution). In this way the formalism depicted here generalizes the approach in BonOliTomVit00a , even when restricting ourselves to the markovian regime. Indeed, whenever we may write $`\lambda (t;\theta ,\theta ^{})=t\stackrel{~}{\lambda }(\theta ,\theta ^{})`$ (which amounts to having $`\sigma (t;\theta ,\theta ^{})`$ and $`g(t;\theta ,\theta ^{})`$ time-independent) we arrive at a markovian evolution, since

$`\overline{\rho }(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }e^{t[i(h(\theta )h(\theta ^{}))\stackrel{~}{\lambda }(\theta ,\theta ^{})]}𝑑E_\theta \rho (0)𝑑E_\theta ^{}`$ (15)
$``$ $`e^{it_{h(H)}+t𝒟_H}[\rho (0)]`$
where $`_{h(H)}`$ and $`𝒟_H`$ denote superoperators.
The previous example depicts a typical situation of nondissipative decoherence. In this language and restricting to the previous case (eq. (13)), this is due to the fact that $`\lambda (t,\theta ,\theta )=0`$, as an immediate calculation of $`\text{Tr}(\overline{\rho }(t)H)`$ shows. Working in the energy eigenstates basis, (13) leads to $`\overline{\rho }(t;E,E^{})=\mathrm{exp}(it(h(E)h(E^{}))\lambda (t;E,E^{})/2)\rho (0;E,E^{})`$, hence

$`\text{Tr}(\rho (t)H)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\sigma (H)}}Ee^{\frac{\lambda (t;E,E)}{2}}\rho (0;E,E)𝑑\mu (E)=`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`\text{Tr}(\rho (0)H)`$
where $`\sigma (H)`$ denotes the spectrum of $`H`$ and $`\mu (E)`$ denotes the measure over this spectrum (a sum if it is discrete and an integral if it is continuous) and where $`\lambda (t,\theta ,\theta )=0`$ has been assumed. From (16) it is clear that if this condition is not satisfied, we have a dissipative decoherence process. This is a third generalization of previous works.
Some comments must be made about this formalism. Though it has been presented as an adequate tool to express decoherence in isolated systems, from a mathematical standpoint it can be viewed as an alternative description of environment-induced decoherence provided the stochastic parameter $`\chi _t`$ is properly connected to the surrounding reservoir properties and the environment-system interaction characteristics. But in our opinion the main benefit from this language is to bring a bit closer the decoherence process and the different models of stochastic state reduction (see AdlBroBruHug01a  for a review of their common backbone). However this connection demands further mathematical work which is in progress.

###### Acknowledgements.

One of us (D.S.) acknowledges the support of Madrid Education Council under grant BOCAM 20-08-1999.


text:
# Gravitational Microlensing in NUT Space

## Abstract

We study the theoretical signature of magnetic masses on the light curve of gravitational microlensing effect in NUT space. The light curves for microlensing events in NUT space are presented and contrasted with those due to lensing produced by normal matter. In the next step, associating magnetic mass to massive astrophysical compact objects (MACHOs), we try to see its effect on the light curves of microlensing candidates observered by the MACHO group. Presence or absence of this feature in the observed microlensing events can shed light on the question of the existence of magnetic masses in the Universe.


text:
# Variational perturbation approach to the Coulomb electron gas

## I Introduction

A variational method has been widely used as a convenient and powerful tool to calculate physical quantities such as energy and order parameters \[1-5\]. The most important advantage of this approach consists in its applicability even for the strongly correlated systems through suitable trial wavefunctions. However, it is extremely difficult to improve the results for the systems with many degrees of freedom. In contrast, results of the perturbative approach are systematically improved by calculating the further corrections using the Feynmann rule \[6-8\]. However, the convergency can not be guaranteed in the unweakly coupled cases.

There have appeared many efforts trying to combine the above two approaches in order to overcome each drawback \[9-14\]. Many studies have been performed mainly in the areas of relativistic field theories and quantum mechanics under the principle of minimal sensitivity (PMS) , which says that approximated physical quantities in the perturbation theory should be minimized with respect to the parameters absent in the original Hamiltonian. These studies are called optimized perturbation theory or variational perturbation theory (VPT), which is applied very successfully to quantum mechanical problems such as the anharmonic oscillator and the double-well potential. However, we are faced with extremely complex higher-order calculations in the case of quantum field theories.

Recently, papers on another kind of VPT have been published \[15-18\]. This approach is not related to the PMS, because the minimization is carried out at the zeroth order and the variational parameters are fixed before the perturbative calculation. It has a simple expansion rule, which makes the VPT approach to many-particle systems more manageable. In this paper, the VPT for fermion systems of ref.  is briefly reviewed, and as a test on the efficiency of the method, we calculate the ground state correlation energy of the three dimensional Coulomb electron gas within a ring approximation.

## II Variational perturbation theory

In this section, we briefly review the VPT in the functional integral formalism . The partition function for fermion systems with two-body interaction is generally given by

$$Z=D[\overline{\psi }\psi ]\mathrm{exp}(G_{ij}^{o^1}\overline{\psi }_i\psi _jV_{ijkl}\overline{\psi }_i\overline{\psi }_j\psi _k\psi _l),$$
(1)
where $`\overline{\psi }_i`$,$`\psi _i`$ are Grassmann variables and each subscript stands for all possible quantum numbers including an imaginary time. The integration and summation symbols are omitted by the summation convention. Here, $`G^o`$ is the bare Green’s function matrix and $`V`$ is an interaction tensor. The second term of the exponent in Eq.(1) is the perturbative term in the conventional perturbation theory. Now, introducing a variational Green’s function $`G`$, the exponent is rewritten as

$`G_{ij}^1\overline{\psi }_i\psi _j(G_{ij}^{o^1}G_{ij}^1)\overline{\psi }_i\psi _jV_{ijkl}\overline{\psi }_i\overline{\psi }_j\psi _k\psi _l.`$ (2)
Then, the second and third terms in Eq.(2) are regarded as a renormalized interaction. According to the Jensen-Peierls’ inequality , we get the inequality between the thermodynamic potential $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and the variational thermodynamic potential $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}(G)`$; $`\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}(G)`$. Minimizing $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}(G)`$ with respect to $`G`$, we obtain an equation of $`G`$ as

$$G^1G^{o^1}+\mathrm{\Sigma }=0,$$
(3)
where $`b|\mathrm{\Sigma }|a2(V_{ibaj}V_{biaj})G_{ji}`$. We note that $`G`$ corresponds to the self-consistent Hartree-Fock Green’s function for the interacting fermion system. Using the condition Eq.(3), the minimized variational thermodynamic potential $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\mathrm{min}}`$ and the correction part $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\mathrm{min}}`$ are arranged as follows, according to the notation in ref.;

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\mathrm{min}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{ln}G{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\beta }}\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Sigma }G,`$ (4)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}\mathrm{exp}\left[V_{ijkl}\left(_{\eta _i}_{\eta _j}_{\overline{\eta }_k}_{\overline{\eta }_l}\right)^{}\right]_{G,C},`$ (5)
where $`\mathrm{}_G\mathrm{}e^{\overline{\eta }_iG_{ij}\eta _j}|_{\overline{\eta },\eta =0}`$ represents the thermal average using $`G`$ and the subscript $`C`$ indicates the connected contractions among all possible contractions by the modified Wick’s theorem Eq.(7) below. During the derivation of the above equations, Grassmann variables $`\overline{\eta }`$, $`\eta `$ are introduced as source fields of the original fields $`\psi `$, $`\overline{\psi }`$, and the renormalized interaction of Eq.(2) is expressed as functional derivatives about source fields. After integrating out the Gaussian integral ($`D[\overline{\psi }\psi ]\mathrm{exp}(\overline{\psi }_iG_{ij}^1\psi _j+\overline{\eta }_i\psi _i+\overline{\psi }_i\eta _i)=\mathrm{Det}G^1e^{\overline{\eta }_iG_{ij}\eta _j}`$) and rearranging the thermodynamic potential under the condition Eq.(3), we obtain Eqs.(4) and (5). Here, the primed derivative operation $`(\mathrm{})^{}`$ is defined as

$`\left(_{\eta _i}_{\eta _j}_{\overline{\eta }_k}_{\overline{\eta }_l}\right)^{}`$
$`(_{\eta _i}_{\eta _j}_{\overline{\eta }_k}_{\overline{\eta }_l}G_{li}_{\eta _j}_{\overline{\eta }_k}G_{kj}_{\eta _i}_{\overline{\eta }_l}`$
$`+G_{lj}_{\eta _i}_{\overline{\eta }_k}+G_{ki}_{\eta _j}_{\overline{\eta }_l}+G_{li}G_{kj}G_{lj}G_{ki}).`$ (6)
Carrying out the nth order calculation of the above operation, we find modified Wick’s theorem  for the perturbative expansion of the present VPT as

$`\left(_{\eta _{i_1}}_{\eta _{j_1}}_{\overline{\eta }_{k_1}}_{\overline{\eta }_{l_1}}\right)^{}\mathrm{}\left(_{\eta _{i_n}}_{\eta _{j_n}}_{\overline{\eta }_{k_n}}_{\overline{\eta }_{l_n}}\right)^{}_G`$
$`=\mathrm{Sum}\mathrm{of}\mathrm{all}\mathrm{possible}\mathrm{contractions}`$
$`\mathrm{between}\mathrm{different}\mathrm{cells}.`$ (7)
Here we call one $`(\mathrm{})^{}`$ a unit cell and the contraction rule is as follows; each $`_{\eta _i}`$ is paired with a $`_{\overline{\eta }_j}`$ in a different cell and then, each pair of derivatives $`_{\eta _i}_{\overline{\eta }_j}`$ is replaced by Green’s function $`G_{ji}`$. In this pairing, every permutation of two derivatives changes the sign. The differences from the original Wick’s theorem are to forbid the intracell contraction and to use the renormalized Green’s function $`G`$. The unit cell with an interaction, $`V_{ijkl}\left(_{\eta _i}_{\eta _j}_{\overline{\eta }_k}_{\overline{\eta }_l}\right)^{}`$, can be described by a diagram as in Fig.1 (a). A contraction is to join two incomming and outgoing lines together and to assign it a propagator $`G`$ which corresponds to a double line. In Fig.1 (b), we show ring diagrams with renormalized propagators, where the first order diagram does not exist because it is an intracell-joining diagram.

For example, the second order perturbation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is given by;

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}V_{ijkl}V_{i^{}j^{}k^{}l^{}}G_{l^{}i}G_{k^{}j}G_{kj^{}}G_{li^{}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}V_{ijkl}V_{i^{}j^{}k^{}l^{}}G_{l^{}i}G_{k^{}j}G_{ki^{}}G_{lj^{}}.`$ (8)
## III Coulomb Electron Gas

The present formulation can be easily applied to any fermion systems with two-body interaction. In this section, the ground state correlation energy of the three dimensional Coulomb electron gas is calculated using the variational ring approximation which is described by ring diagrams in Fig.1 (b). The model Hamiltonian is given by

$$H=\underset{k\sigma }{}ϵ_ka_{k\sigma }^{}a_{k\sigma }+\frac{1}{2}\underset{kk^{}q\sigma \sigma ^{}}{\overset{^{}}{}}v(q)a_{k\sigma }^{}a_{k^{}\sigma ^{}}^{}a_{k^{}q\sigma ^{}}a_{k+q\sigma },$$
(9)
where $`a_{k\sigma }^{}`$($`a_{k\sigma }`$) is a creation(annihilation) operator of an electron with wavevector $`k`$ and spin $`\sigma `$. We have defined $`ϵ_k=\mathrm{}^2k^2/2m_e`$ and $`v(q)=4\pi e^2/Vq^2`$. Here, $`V`$, $`m_e`$ and $`e`$ are the system volume, the electron mass and charge respectively. The primed summation indicates that the $`q=0`$ term is excluded because of the cancellation with the positively charged background. In this model, the interaction $`V_{ijkl}`$ of Eq.(1) is expressed as

$`V_{ijkl}`$ $``$ $`V_{k_1\sigma _1\tau _1,k_2\sigma _2\tau _2,k_3\sigma _3\tau _3,k_4\sigma _4\tau _4}`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}v(|k_4k_1|)\delta _{k_1+k_2,k_3+k_4}\delta _{\sigma _1\sigma _4}\delta _{\sigma _2\sigma _3}`$
$`\times `$ $`\delta (\tau _1\tau _2)\delta (\tau _3\tau _4)\delta (\tau _2\tau _3).`$
The variational Green’s function $`G`$ is determined by Eq.(3). For a homogeneous system, $`G_{k\sigma \tau ,k\sigma \tau ^{}}`$ is written as $`G_{k\sigma }(\tau \tau ^{})`$ and the Fourier transform of Eq.(3) with respect to time gives

$`G_{k\sigma }(i\omega _n)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{i\omega _n(\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{k\sigma }\mu )}},`$ (11)
where $`\omega _n=(2n+1)\pi /\beta `$ is the fermion Matsubara frequency with integer $`n`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{k\sigma }=ϵ_k_qv(q)n_{k+q\sigma }`$ is the renormalized electron energy using the Fermi distribution function with the renormalized energy, $`n_{k\sigma }=1/(e^{\beta (\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{k\sigma }\mu )}+1)`$.

Therefore, the minimized variational thermodynamic potential $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\mathrm{min}}`$ at $`T=0`$K is

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\mathrm{min}}={\displaystyle \underset{k\sigma }{}}(\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_k\mu )n_{k\sigma }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{kq\sigma }{}}v(q)n_{k+q\sigma }n_{k\sigma }.`$ (12)
This is the Hartree-Fock result. The second term cancels the doubly counted interaction energy in the first term to give the singly counted result. If the interaction part of $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{k\sigma }`$ and the second term are summed up, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\mathrm{min}}`$ has the same form as the conventional first order result $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$; $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1=_{k\sigma }(ϵ_k\mu )n_{k\sigma }^0\frac{1}{2}_{kq\sigma }v(q)n_{k+q\sigma }^0n_{k\sigma }^0`$ , where $`n_{k\sigma }^0=1/(e^{\beta (ϵ_{k\sigma }\mu )}+1)`$. In addition, the Fermi distribution function with a renormalized energy is a step function in the ground state like that with a bare energy. Therefore, the Hartree-Fock ground state energy is equal to the conventional first order one, which results from the spherical symmetry of electron gas . Hence, one might think that the ground state energy obtained by higher order calculations through the present VPT would produce the same result as that of the conventional perturbation method. However, as we will see below, they are different because the VPT propagator has a renormalized energy $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{k\sigma }`$ and furthermore, there are some forbidden diagrams in the VPT expansion, which are allowed in the conventional perturbation.

Since the present formalism parallels exactly the conventional perturbation except for the modification of the Wick’s theorem and the renormalization of the propagator, we can carry out the ring diagram summation without any difficulty. The ring contribution to the thermodynamic potential is depicted by Fig.1 (b). The double line represents a renormalized propagator $`G`$. The variational ring diagrams are summed up to the logarithmic function as in the conventional ring approximation , namely,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{q\nu _n}{}}\mathrm{ln}[1+v(q)F(q,\nu _n)]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{q\nu _n}{}}v(q)F(q,\nu _n),`$ (13)
where $`\nu _n=2\pi n/\beta `$ is the boson Matsubara frequency and $`F(q,\nu _n)`$ is the renormalized Lindhard function,

$`F(q,\nu _n)={\displaystyle \underset{k\sigma }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{n_{k+q,\sigma }n_{k,\sigma }}{i\nu _n(\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{k+q,\sigma }\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{k,\sigma })}}.`$ (14)
At zero temperature, the discrete frequency summation $`\frac{1}{2\beta }_{\nu _n}`$ is replaced by a continuous integral $`\frac{1}{4\pi }𝑑\nu `$.

Figure 2 shows Lindhard functions at zero temperature. The small(large) dotted line corresponds to the bare(renormalized) Lindhard function. According to the linear response theory, the Lindhard function $`F_0(q,\nu )`$ has important properties that it is proportional to the spin and charge susceptibilities of free fermion systems, $`\chi _0^s(q,\nu )`$ and $`\chi _0^e(q,\nu )`$. In addition, $`F_0(0,0)`$ is equal to the density of states at the Fermi surface, $`D(ϵ_F)`$ . We note that the values of $`F(q,0)`$ is much reduced by the inclusion of the exchange energy into a bare energy band. Furthermore, the behavior near $`q=0`$ is completely different, which originate from the much larger energy slope around the Fermi surface than the bare one. The difference between $`F(q,\nu )`$ and $`F_0(q,\nu )`$ results in different ground state energies between the variational and conventional ring approximations.

The chemical potential $`\mu `$ is an independent variable of the thermodynamic potential $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\mu )`$, hence in order to obtain the free energy as a function of electron density, we should change the independent variable using the Legendere transformation; $`F(N)=\mathrm{\Omega }(\mu )+\mu N`$ and $`\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mu }=N`$, where $`N`$ is the number of particles and $`F(N)`$ is the free energy. However, this relation can not be applied directly in approximations except for Hartree-Fock’s and Baym’s self-consistent schemes  because $`\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mu }`$ does not represent the particle number. Instead, we use the fact that the Fermi wavevector does not change with the inclusion of correlation according to Luttinger’s theorem . Therefore, we approximate the free energy as follows; $`F(N)\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\mathrm{min}}(\mu _0)+\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{ring}}(\mu _0)+\mu _0N`$ and $`\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\mathrm{min}}}{\mu }|_{\mu _0}=N`$, where the Fermi wavevector (or the density) is fixed by the second relation without the correlation part. In the case of the conventional ring approximation, if $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\mathrm{min}}`$ is replaced by a non-interacting part $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$, the free energy by this transformation reproduces the RPA(random phase approximation) correlation energy.

Figure 3 shows the correlation energy as a function of $`r_s`$ which is the averaged relative distance between electrons defined by $`V=(4/3)\pi (a_0r_s)^3N`$, where $`V`$, $`N`$ and $`a_0`$ are the system volume, the number of electrons and the Bohr radius, respectively. The triangles are the result of the Green’s function Monte Carlo calculation  and the better agreement with it is realized by the VPT. The conventional rings contain only direct Coulomb interacting processes without exchange contributions which are very important for fermion systems, and thus, the summation of them gives, so called, the RPA result . On the other hand, the variational rings possess infinitely many higher order exchange processes through the variational propagator $`G`$ as well as direct processes. As a result, we achieve much improvement in the correlation energy beyond the RPA. It is well known that the ring approximation can be applied satisfactorily for very small $`r_s`$ ($`r_s1`$). In Fig.3, however, we note that even for large $`r_s`$, the variational rings give successful results.

Here, we examined the efficiency of the VPT by calculating the correlation energy of the Coulomb electron gas. Further corrections beyond variational rings and the extension to finite temperatures are also easily accessible within the present VPT and we expect good applications to any other systems.

## IV summary

After briefly reviewing the VPT formulated recently for the many-particle systems, we have applied this method to the Coulomb electron gas. The ground state correlation energy of the Coulomb electron gas is calculated with the ring approximation of the VPT. Improvement is achieved by the expansion with variational propagators. Especially, we note that even for large $`r_s`$, the approximation produces quite successful results, as is evident from the good agreement with that of the Green’s function Monte Carlo calculation.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by postdoctoral fellowships program from Korea Science & Engineering Foundation (KOSEF), and it was also financed in part by the Visitor Program of the MPI-PKS.


text:
# Wallman-Frink proximities

## Abstract.

This is a survey of compactification extension results and problems for a special class of proximities.

###### Key words and phrases:

Proximity structures  Marlon C. Rayburn, Wallman-Frink proximities, Proceedings of the Ninth Prague Topological Symposium, (Prague, 2001), pp. 265–270, Topology Atlas, Toronto, 2002

The compatible Efremovič proximities on a Tichonov space are ordered by $`\delta \rho `$ if for all $`A,BX`$, $`A\delta BA\rho B`$. It is well known that the Smirnov completions of the Efremovič proximities give a one-to-one, order reversing correspondence between the Hausdorff compactifications and the proximities. This merely means that the proximities share the compactification lattice order problem (“find a necessary and sufficient condition on $`X`$ that the Hausdorff compactifications form a lattice”).

While it is not practical to work on the order problems by embedding the Hausdorff compactifications in the larger family of $`T_1`$ compactifications, there simply being no end to the latter, the Efremovič proximities generalize nicely to the complete lattice of Ladato proximities. When Gagrat and Naimpally showed that the compatible separated proximities on a space complete to $`T_1`$ compactifications, it seemed a solution to the order problem was at last in sight.

Unfortunately, troubles remain. The Gagrat-Naimpally compactifications are among the $`T_1`$ compactifications, yes, but which ones are they? Moreover, the corresponding order between the completions breaks down. Even a $`p`$-map between proximity spaces will only lift, in general, to a continuous extension from the Gagrat-Naimpally completion of the domain to the “bunch space” of the range — something rich and strange.

What follows is an attempt to solve these problems for the special case of Lodato proximities in the style of Wallman-Frink.

###### Definition 1.

Let $`X`$ be a $`T_1`$ space with at least two points. Let $``$ be any base for the closed sets such that

1. $``$ is a network (i.e. $`xG`$, open, implies there is some $`B`$ with $`xBG)`$, and
2. $``$ is a ring of sets (i.e. $``$ is closed under finite unions and finite intersections).

Then $``$ is a normal base for the closed sets.

N. b. since $`x`$ has at least two points, $`\mathrm{}`$.

###### Definition 2.

The Wallman-Frink proximity $`\delta _b`$ associated with normal base $``$ is given by:

$$A\overline{)}\delta _bBF_1,F_2\text{ with }AF_1,BF_2\text{ and }F_1F_2=\mathrm{}.$$

Hence $`A\delta _bBF_1,F_2,AF_1\text{ and }BF_2F_1F_2\mathrm{}`$.

###### Theorem 3.

$`\delta _b`$ is a compatible, separated Lodato proximity on $`X`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`\mathrm{}`$, clearly $`\mathrm{}\overline{)}\delta _bA`$ for any $`AX`$. It is also clear that $`A\overline{)}\delta _bBB\overline{)}\delta _bA`$, and $`A\overline{)}\delta _bBAB=\mathrm{}`$.

Since $``$ is a ring of sets, if $`A\overline{)}\delta _bB`$ and $`A\overline{)}\delta _bC`$, then $`A\overline{)}\delta _b(BC)`$.

Since $``$ is a network, $`xyx\overline{)}\delta _bY`$, and $`xcl(A)x\overline{)}\delta _bA`$. Thus $`A\overline{)}\delta _bC`$ and $`Bcl(C)\overline{)}\delta _bB`$. ∎

###### Corollary 4.

$`\delta _b`$ is Efremovič $``$ whenever $`F_1`$, $`F_2`$ such that $`F_1F_2=\mathrm{}`$, then there exists some $`C`$, $`D`$ such that $`F_1X\backslash C`$, $`F_2X\backslash D`$, and $`(X\backslash C)(X\backslash D)=\mathrm{}`$.

A b-filter is a filterbase $``$ of sets from $``$ such that whenever $`B`$ and $`BF`$, then $`F`$. A b-ultrafilter is a maximal b-filter. By Zorn’s Lemma, every b-filter is contained in at least one b-ultrafilter. N.b., for any ultrafilter $`\mu `$ on $`X`$, $`\mu `$ is a b-filter.

###### Definition 5.

An ultrafilter $`\mu `$ on $`X`$ is an ultrafilter of type b if $`\mu `$ is a b-ultrafilter.

###### Lemma 6.

For any normal base $``$ on $`T_1`$-space $`X`$ and each $`xX`$, the point ultrafilter $`\mu _x=\{A:xA\}`$ is an ultrafilter of type $`b`$.

###### Proof.

We need only check that the b-filter $`\mu _x`$ is a maximal among the b-filters. Suppose $`\phi `$ is a b-filter with $`\mu _x\phi `$. Then each $`F\phi `$, $`FB\mathrm{}`$ for all $`B\mu _x`$. Since $``$ is a network, we see that $`xcl(F)=F`$ for each $`F\phi `$. Hence $`\mu _x=\phi `$. ∎

###### Lemma 7.

If $`\mu `$ is any b-ultrafilter, then there is an ultrafilter $`\alpha `$ of type $`b`$ such that $`\mu =\alpha `$.

###### Proof.

$`\mu `$ is a filterbase of sets, so it is contained an ultrafilter $`\alpha `$. Thus $`\mu \alpha `$. Since $`\mu `$ is maximal, $`\mu =\alpha `$. ∎

###### Lemma 8.

Let $`\delta `$ be any compatible Lodato proximity with $`\delta _b\delta `$. For every ultrafilter $`\mu `$ on $`X`$, there is an ultrafilter $`\alpha `$ of type $`b`$ such that $`\mu \delta \alpha `$.

###### Proof.

Since $`\mu `$ is a b-filter, we must have $`\mu \phi `$ for some b-ultrafilter $`\phi `$. By the last lemma, there is an ultrafilter $`\alpha `$ of type $`b`$ with $`\phi =\alpha `$. Suppose $`\mu \overline{)}\delta \alpha `$. Then $`\mu \overline{)}\delta _b\alpha `$, so we must have an $`M\mu `$, and $`A\alpha `$ and some $`F_1`$, $`F_2`$ with $`MF_1`$, $`AF_2`$ and $`F_1F_2=\mathrm{}`$. But since $`\mu \alpha `$, we have $`F_1`$ and $`F_2\alpha `$, contradiction to filter. ∎

###### Lemma 9.

On $`(X,\delta _b)`$, given any ultrafilter $`\mu `$ and any ultrafilter $`\alpha `$ of type $`b`$, $`\mu \delta _b\alpha `$ if and only if $`\mu \alpha `$. Hence any two ultrafilters near an ultrafilter of type $`b`$ are near each other. In particular, $`\delta _b`$ is transitive over ultrafilters of type $`b`$.

###### Proof.

Suppose $`\mu \delta _b\alpha `$. Then for each $`B\mu `$, $`BF\mathrm{}`$ or every $`F\alpha `$. Since $`\alpha `$ is a b-ultrafilter, we have that $`B\alpha `$. The converse is clear from the definition of $`\delta _b`$. ∎

###### Definition 10.

Let $`\gamma `$ be any filterbase on proximity space $`(X,\delta )`$ and set $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\delta (\gamma )=\{\upsilon :\upsilon \text{ is an ultrafilter and }\upsilon \delta \gamma \}`$.

###### Definition 11.

* A grill $`\gamma `$ on a proximity space $`(X,\delta )`$ is a precluster if whenever $`AX`$ and $`\{A\}\delta \gamma `$, then $`A\gamma `$.
* A pre-cluster $`\sigma `$ on $`(X,\delta )`$ is a cluster if it is a clan.

###### Example 12.

Let $`\alpha `$ be any filterbase on proximity space $`(X,\delta )`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\phi )`$ is a pre-cluster.

###### Theorem 13.

On $`(X,\delta _b)`$, if $`\alpha `$ is an ultrafilter of type $`b`$, then $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\alpha )`$ is a cluster.

###### Proof.

By Example 12, $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\alpha )`$ is a pre-cluster and by lemma 9, $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\alpha )`$ is a clan. ∎

###### Theorem 14.

The subspace $`T_bX`$ of the Gagrat-Naimpally completion $`\alpha _{\delta _b}X`$ given by the set of all maximal clans is a $`T_1`$ compactification on $`X`$.

###### Proof.

By Theorem 11,

$$T_bX=\{\mathrm{\Pi }(\alpha ):\alpha \text{ is an ultrafilter of type }b\}$$

is a subset of $`\alpha _\delta X`$, the set of all maximal clans on $`X`$. Hence $`T_bX`$ is a $`T_1`$ space, which by Lemma 6 contains a dense copy of $`X`$. It remains to show that $`T_bX`$ is compact.

For each $`F`$, let

$$F^{}=\{\mathrm{\Pi }(\alpha ):F\mathrm{\Pi }(\alpha )\}.$$

These will be the basic closed sets of the topology of $`T_bX`$. Let $`=\{F_j^{}:j\mathrm{\Gamma }\}`$ be a family of basic closed sets with the finite intersection property. Let

$$=\{F_j:j\mathrm{\Gamma }\}.$$

Let

$$^{}=\{\underset{j}{}F_j:\mathrm{\Lambda }\text{ a non-empty, finite subset of }\mathrm{\Gamma }\}.$$

Then $`^{}`$ is a filterbase of sets from $``$ since $``$ is a ring, and $`^{}`$. By Zorn’s Lemma, $`^{}`$ is contained in some b-ultrafilter, which by Lemma 7 we may write as $`\alpha `$ of some ultrafilter $`\alpha `$ of type $`b`$. But then $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\alpha )`$, so for each $`j\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\alpha )F_j^{}`$, and thus $`\mathrm{}`$. ∎

If $``$ is a normal base of closed sets for $`T_1`$ space $`X`$, we may constuct a “Wallman-Frink” compactification $`bX`$ of $`X`$ in the usual way (See Willard’s “General Topology”, Exercise 19K p 142):

* Let $`bX`$ be the set of all b-ultrafilters on $`X`$.
* For each $`B`$, let $`B^{}=\{\phi bX:B\phi \}`$. This is a base for closed sets for a topology on $`bX`$. Call it the “absorption” topology for $``$.
* Under the absorption topology, $`bX`$ is compact and $`T_1`$.
* $`\tau :XbX`$ by $`t(x)=\mu _x`$ is a homeomorphism from $`X`$ onto a dense subset of $`bX`$.

###### Theorem 15.

There is a homeomorphism between the $`T_1`$ compactification $`T_bX`$ of $`(X,\delta _b)`$ and the Wallman-Frink compactification $`bX`$, which fixes $`X`$ point-wise.

###### Proof.

Let $`f`$ be the bijection assigning maximal b-clan $`\sigma =\mathrm{\Pi }(\alpha )`$ to the b-ultrafilter $`\sigma `$. Set $`B`$ gives us both basic closed set

$$B=\{\sigma T_bX:B\sigma \}\text{and}B^{}=\{\phi bX:B\phi \}.$$

But clearly $`B\phi `$ if and only if $`B\delta \alpha `$ for every ultrafilter $`\alpha `$ of type $`b`$ for which $`\phi =\alpha `$, and $`F\alpha `$ if and only if $`F\sigma _\alpha `$ for $`\sigma _\alpha =\{\mu :\text{ ultrafilter }\mu \delta _b\alpha \}`$. Hence $`f`$ is one-to-one between basic closed sets of $`bX`$ and $`T_bX`$, and is therefore a homeomorphism. That $`f`$ is $`11`$ on $`X`$ follows from Lemma 6. ∎

###### Problem.

This identifies the Wallman compactification of a $`T_1`$ space with a subspace of the Gagrat-Naimpally compactification of $`(X,\delta _w)`$. Conceivably this is possible, yet it does not rule out the equality of the two extensions. This would amount to showing the reverse of Theorem 11, that every maximal clan is of form $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\alpha )`$ for some ultrafilter $`\alpha `$ of type $`b`$.

Specifically, let $`\sigma `$ be any maximal clan on $`(X,\delta _b)`$ and consider

$$\sigma =\{\mu :\text{ ultrafilter }\mu \sigma \}.$$

Let $`F\sigma `$ and $`FB`$. Then there is some ultrafilter $`\mu \sigma `$ such that $`F\mu `$. Therefore $`B\mu `$, so $`B\sigma `$. Now let $`F_1`$ and $`F_2\sigma `$. Then $`F_1\delta _bF_2`$ since $`\sigma `$ is a clan, so $`F_1F_2\mathrm{}`$. Suppose $`F_1F_2\sigma `$. Then $`\sigma `$ is a b-filter, so there is an ultra-filter $`\alpha `$ of type $`b`$ such that $`\sigma \alpha `$. Hence for every $`\mu \sigma `$, $`\mu \delta _b\alpha `$, so $`\sigma \mathrm{\Pi }(\alpha )`$. By the maximality of $`\sigma `$, $`\sigma =\mathrm{\Pi }(\alpha )`$. Thus

###### Theorem 16.

Let $`\sigma `$ be a maximal clan on $`(X,\delta _b)`$. Then $`\sigma =\mathrm{\Pi }(\alpha )`$ for some ultrafilter $`\alpha `$ of type $`b`$ $``$ $`[F_1,F_2\sigma F_1F_2\sigma ]`$.

Now suppose $`X`$ to be a $`T_1`$-space for which $``$ and $`𝒟`$ are normal bases with $`𝒟`$. \[Hence $`\delta _b\delta _d`$.\]

###### Lemma 17.

Let $`\sigma `$ be any element of $`T_d`$. Then there is an ultrafilter $`\beta `$ of both types $`b`$ and $`d`$ such that $`\sigma =\mathrm{\Pi }_d(\beta )`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`\sigma `$ is an element of $`T_d`$, there is an ultrafilter $`\gamma `$ of type $`d`$ such that $`\sigma =\mathrm{\Pi }_d(\gamma )`$. But $`\gamma `$ is an ultrafilter in $`(X,\delta _b)`$, so there exists an ultrafilter $`\beta `$ of type $`b`$ such that $`\gamma \delta _b\beta `$. This means that $`\gamma \beta `$. But $`𝒟`$ implies $`\gamma 𝒟𝒟`$. By maximality of $`\gamma 𝒟`$, we have $`\gamma 𝒟=\beta 𝒟`$. Thus $`\beta `$ is also an ultrafilter of type $`d`$.

Now ultrafilter $`\mu \mathrm{\Pi }_d(\gamma )`$ if and only if $`\mu 𝒟\gamma 𝒟=\beta 𝒟`$. Therefore $`\mu \mathrm{\Pi }_d(\gamma )`$ if and only if $`\mu \mathrm{\Pi }_d(\beta )`$, and $`\sigma =\mathrm{\Pi }_d(\beta )`$. ∎

###### Notation 18.

An ultrafilter $`\beta `$ of both types $`b`$ and $`d`$ will be called an ultrafilter of joint type.

###### Lemma 19.

Let $`\alpha `$ be any ultrafilter of type $`b`$. Then there is an ultrafilter $`\beta `$ of joint type such that $`\alpha \delta _d\beta `$.

###### Proof.

There is an ultrafilter $`\gamma `$ of type $`d`$ such that $`\sigma \delta _d\gamma `$. By the last lemma, there is an ultrafilter $`\beta `$ of joint type with $`\gamma \delta _d\beta `$. Hence $`\alpha \delta _d\beta `$. ∎

###### Definition 20.

Let $`\beta `$ be an ultrafilter of joint type and put

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\beta =\{\mathrm{\Pi }_b(\alpha ):\alpha \text{ is an ultrafilter of type }b\text{ and }\alpha \delta _d\beta \}.$$

###### Theorem 21.

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\beta `$ is a $`\delta _d`$-clan, and is contained in a unique maximal $`\delta _d`$-clan, namely $`\mathrm{\Pi }_d(\beta )`$.

###### Proof.

First, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\beta `$ is a $`d`$-clan. Let $`S`$ and $`T`$ be sets in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\beta `$. By definition of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\beta `$, we can find ultrafilters $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _2`$ so that $`\alpha _1\delta _d\beta `$, $`\alpha _2\delta _d\beta `$ and $`S\alpha _1`$, $`T\alpha _2`$. Suppose $`S\overline{)}\delta _dT`$. Then there exist $`D_1`$, $`D_2𝒟`$ such that $`SD_1`$, $`TD_2`$ and $`D_1D_2=\mathrm{}`$. Since $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _2`$ are ultrafilters, we must have $`D_1\alpha _1`$ and $`D_2\alpha _2`$. Now $`\alpha _1𝒟\beta 𝒟`$ and $`\alpha _2𝒟\beta 𝒟`$. Thus $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ are in $`\beta 𝒟`$, contradiction to $`D_1D_2=\mathrm{}`$. Clearly $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\beta \mathrm{\Pi }_d(\beta )`$, which is a maximal $`d`$-clan. Suppose $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is a maximal $`d`$-clan with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\beta \mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{\Pi }_d(\beta )`$. Then there must an $`A\mathrm{\Pi }`$ and some $`G\beta `$ for which $`A\overline{)}\delta _dG`$. But $`A\delta _dB`$ for all $`B\mathrm{\Gamma }_\beta `$, and, because $`\beta \mathrm{\Pi }_b(\beta )\mathrm{\Gamma }_\beta `$, $`G\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, contradiction. Thus $`\mathrm{\Pi }_d(\gamma )`$ is unique. ∎

###### Theorem 22.

The following are clearly equivalent:

* For each $`\beta `$ of joint type, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\beta =\mathrm{\Pi }_d(\beta )`$.
* If $`\alpha `$ is of type $`b`$ and $`\beta _1`$, $`\beta _2`$ are of joint type such that $`\beta _1\delta _d\alpha `$ and $`\beta _2\delta _d\alpha `$, then $`\beta _1\delta _d\beta _2`$.
* $`\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\beta :\beta \text{ is of joint type}\}`$ partitions $`T_bX`$.

###### Theorem 23.

If any (hence, all) of the conditions of $`22`$ are met, then there exists a continuous function $`f:T_bXT_dX`$ which is the identity on $`X`$.

###### Proof.

Define $`f:T_bXT_dX`$ by the following: For $`\mathrm{\Pi }_b(\alpha )T_bX`$, there is some $`\beta `$ of joint type such that $`\alpha \delta _d\beta `$. Let $`f[\mathrm{\Pi }_b(\alpha )]=\mathrm{\Pi }_d(\beta )`$. By 19, $`f`$ is a well defined function.

To show that $`f`$ is continuous, let $`𝒜T_bX`$ and suppose $`\sigma _0T_bX`$ with $`f(\sigma _0)cl_df[𝒜]`$. We shall show $`\sigma _0cl_b(𝒜)`$. Now

$$cl_df[𝒜]=\{D^{}:f[𝒜]D^{}\}.$$

In particular, there is some $`D_0𝒟`$ with $`f[𝒜]D_0^{}`$, yet $`f(\sigma _0)D_0^{}`$. Now

$$D_0^{}=\{\mathrm{\Pi }_d(\gamma ):D_0\mathrm{\Pi }_d(\gamma )\}.$$

So $`\sigma 𝒜`$ implies $`f(\sigma )D_0^{}`$, whence $`D_0f(\sigma )`$ and $`f^{}(D_0)\sigma `$. Therefore $`\sigma [f^{}(D_0)]^{}`$. Hence $`𝒜[f^{}(D_0)]^{}`$, closed in $`T_bX`$, so $`cl_b(𝒜)[f^{}(D_0)]^{}`$. But $`f(\sigma _0)D_0^{}`$. Therefore $`D_0f(\sigma _0)`$ and $`\sigma _0[f^{}(D_0)]^{}`$. ∎


text:
# Perturbative Effective Theory in an Oscillator Basis?

## Abstract

The effective interaction/operator problem in nuclear physics is believed to be highly nonperturbative, requiring extended high-momentum spaces for accurate solution. We trace this to difficulties that arise at both short and long distances when the included space is defined in terms of a basis of harmonic oscillator Slater determinants. We show, in the simplest case of the deuteron, that both difficulties can be circumvented, yielding highly perturbative results in the potential even for modest ($``$ 6$`\mathrm{}\omega `$) included spaces.

There is an extensive literature on attempts to relate the effective interaction, needed in any description of nuclei based on a finite set of low-momentum basis states, to the underlying, more singular $`NN`$ interaction. As Barrett  has summarized, one hope of investigators in the 1970s was that $`H^{eff}`$ might be expanded perturbatively in either the bare potential $`V`$ or in the $`G`$ matrix, the sum of all two-nucleon ladder diagrams for scattering in the excluded, high-momentum space. While some phenomenological success was achieved by selecting certain diagrams , more systematic treatments provided little indication of convergence. For example, the third-order calculations of Barrett and Kirson  yielded a correction of the same size but opposite in sign to the second-order result. At about the same time Shucan and Weidenmuller  demonstrated in a toy model that strongly coupled “intruder” states – states low in energy having little overlap with the model space – generically lead to poorly convergent expansions. These disappointing results led many practioners to turn to phenomenological $`H^{eff}`$s – an approach that is also lacking because it fails to provide a basis for generating effective operators consistent with $`H^{eff}`$.

The lack of a first-principles technique for effective interactions had a discouraging effect on the field for a number of years. However several recent developments – including the rapid growth of computing power and interest in effective field theory  – have encouraged new attempts to calculate $`H^{eff}`$ in a systematic, controlled way.

One step in this direction was reported recently : for an included space consisting of a complete set of harmonic oscillator (HO) Slater determinants of energy $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SM}\mathrm{}\omega `$, the deuteron and 3He were treated as exact effective theories (ET). The point was to illustrate crucial aspects of ETs that are generally absent in models like the shell model (SM), including nontrivial wave function normalizations, the many-body nature of effective interactions, the rapid evolution of $`H^{eff}`$ matrix elements with changes in the model space, and the crucial role of consistent effective operators.

The starting point for the calculation of Ref.  is the Bloch-Horowitz equation . For a low-momentum “included space” defined by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SM}`$ and a HO size parameter $`b`$, $`H^{eff}`$ will be translationally invariant. (Note $`\mathrm{}\omega =\mathrm{}^2/Mb^2`$, with $`M`$ the nucleon mass.) Defining the projection operator onto the high-momentum Slater determinants by $`Q(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SM},b)`$, one finds

$`H^{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`H+H{\displaystyle \frac{1}{EQH}}QH`$ (1)
$`H^{eff}|\psi _{SM}`$ $`=`$ $`E|\psi _{SM}|\psi _{SM}=(1Q)|\psi `$ (2)
where $`|\psi `$ is the exact wave function, $`H|\psi =E|\psi `$, and $`H=T+V`$ is the sum of relative kinetic energy and potential terms. This equation has to be solved self-consistently for each desired but unknown eigenvalue $`E`$. The method introduced in  provided an efficient solution to the self-consistency problem, constructing the needed Green’s function as a function of $`E`$ by a method based on the Lanczos algorithm: with this technique one iteratively extracts the high-momentum spectral information most relevant to the construction of the Green’s function.

This approach, in principle, can be extended to heavier systems. In practice, however, the integration over high-momentum states becomes more challenging with increasing $`A`$: in , where the Argonne $`v18`$ potential  was employed, high-momentum integrations up to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{}}140`$ ($``$ 60) were necessary to achieve 1 keV (25 keV) accuracy. In this letter we argue that this integration can be performed in a much simpler way.

We begin by investigating why the high momentum integration is nonperturbative. One can envision moving the SM scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SM}`$ very close to the necessary $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{}}`$, which clearly makes the excluded-space contribution to the BH equation a small correction. As the energy denominator in Eq. (1) is then very large, one might assume that the high-momentum problem is now perturbative.

To test this conclusion we expand the excluded-space contribution to Eq. (1)

$$H\frac{1}{EQH}QH=H\left[\frac{1}{EQT}+\frac{1}{EQT}QV\frac{1}{EQT}+\mathrm{}\right]QH$$
(3)
The order-by-order results ( dashed lines in Fig. 1a) are quite curious. The total excluded-space contribution, given the very high value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SM}`$ = 70 chosen, accounts for only 20 keV of binding energy; 85% of this is generated by the first term in Eq. (2). However subsequent order-by-order corrections appear to converge to a value a few keV above the true binding energy. Only after $``$ 1000 orders of perturbation theory is the correct binding energy slowly achieved. (Very similar results are obtained if one uses the HO Hamiltonian $`T+V_0`$, instead of $`T`$, as the unperturbed Hamiltonian.)

In Figs. 1b and 1c this behavior is explored for two matrix elements of $`H^{eff}`$. Most matrix elements converge rapidly, like the $`1s1s`$ example of Fig. 1b. The exceptions are those where the bra or ket lies in the last included shell, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha =\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SM}`$, such as the $`n=36`$ $`s`$-state case of Fig 1c). This associates the poor convergence with $`T`$ which, because of the raising/lowering properties of the gradient operator in a HO basis, connects only such states to the excluded space.

It is helpful to note that a HO-basis ET differs from effective field theories in that the expansion is around an intermediate momentum $`q_01/b`$, rather than $`q_00`$. Fig. 1 shows that this expansion then induces a familiar long-distance problem: because HO wave functions fall off too sharply, the correct asymptotic wave function can only be achieved by scattering through a very large number of high-momentum oscillator states. Consequently a poorly convergent “tail” exists regardless of how high $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SM}`$ is chosen: a larger $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SM}`$ restricts the unresolved tail to larger $`r`$ and thus limits its numerical significance, but does not in principle make the problem perturbative.

The solution to this problem is not entirely trivial. The HO basis is essential because of the center-of-mass separability it provides. Because the relevant operator is the relative kinetic energy

$$T=\frac{1}{2}\underset{ij=1}{\overset{A}{}}T_{ij}$$
(4)
where $`T_{ij}=(\stackrel{}{p}_i\stackrel{}{p}_j)^2/2AM`$, the missing long-distance correlations are two-body. As the problem is associated with $`T`$ hopping from the included space at large $`r`$ with a large amplitude, we rearrange the BH equation so that the Green’s function is sandwiched between $`V`$s, thereby cutting off large-$`r`$ propagation

$$\alpha |H^{eff}|\beta =\alpha |T|\stackrel{~}{\beta }+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|V+V\frac{1}{EQH}QV|\stackrel{~}{\beta }$$
(5)
where

$$|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=\frac{E}{EQT}|\alpha $$
(6)
with $`|\alpha `$ a HO Slater determinant. Thus $`|\alpha =|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ for Slater determinants for which $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }_{SM}`$. Otherwise, apart from the overall normalization, $`|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ differs significantly from $`|\alpha `$ only in its large-$`r`$ behavior (Fig. 2). We stress that Eq. (4) is equivalent to Eq. (1). Finally we insert the bracketed Green’s function expansion of Eq. (2) into Eq. (4). Thus $`QV`$ always appears between insertions of $`QT`$, summed to all orders.

The results are given by the solid lines in Figs. 1a and 1c. The $`36s|H^{eff}|36s`$ matrix element and total binding energy now converge rapidly. In fact $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SM}`$ can be lowered to $`40`$ while keeping high momentum contributions perturbative: in third order 1 keV accuracy is maintained.

However, with further lowering of the SM scale, the convergence again exhibits hints of deterioration – with new symptoms. For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SM}=30`$, the third-order calculation reduces $``$ 10% errors in the bare value of $`1s|H^{eff}|1s`$ to $`0.2`$%. But an error in excess of 0.1% – corresponding to 50 keV – persists after 10 additional orders of perturbation. Unlike the case discussed above, all matrix elements are affected, though the nonperturbative corrections to $`ss`$ transitions are larger than those for $`sd`$ and much larger than those for $`dd`$ matrix elements. This is a signature of scattering at small $`r`$ through the hard core. Numerically one can verify that the nonperturbative tail disappears if the hard core in $`V`$ is removed.

An exact ET must yield the same result regardless of the choice of excluded space parameters $`b`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SM}`$. However it is possible that a judicious choice of these parameters might simplify the numerical difficulty of the ET. While $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SM}`$ generally is limited by the size of one’s computer, $`b`$ can be varied freely. A natural choice for $`b`$ is the value that minimizes the 0th order energy (obtained by ignoring entirely the last term in Eq. (1) or Eq. (4)). This corresponds to minimizing the bare Hamiltonian $`T+V_{SM}`$ as a function of $`b`$ in Eq. (1). The closer the binding energy to the correct value, of course, the smaller the contribution of the high-momentum corrections due to scattering in the excluded space.

The dashed lines in Fig. 3 are the 0th-order energies for Eq. (1) as a function of $`b`$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SM}`$ = 6, 8, and 10. As $`T+V_{SM}`$ is a variational estimate of the energy, the contour minima are upper bounds to the exact result. The 0th-order results fail to bind the deuteron; the minima are achieved for $`b`$ 0.79-0.83$`f`$. (Note that $`b_{eff}=\sqrt{2}b`$ is the size scale in the relative coordinate, $`\stackrel{}{r_1}\stackrel{}{r_2}`$.) This $`b_{eff}`$ is considerably smaller than the nuclear size: the SM is doing its best to find a compromise between two needs, resolving the hard core (a problem that becomes easier for small $`b`$) and reproducing the correct long-distance behavior (a problem that becomes easier for large $`b`$ \- a doubling of $`b`$ roughly halves the number of high-momentum states that must be included to calculate $`T^{eff}`$ to an equivalent accuracy). The resulting compromise $`b`$ addresses neither need well.

The solid lines in Fig. 3 are the corresponding results for the 0th-order approximation to Eq. (4). The minima shift to $`b`$ 0.4-0.5$`f`$, and the unperturbed results are very accurate, with errors of 21, 36, and 52 keV for 10, 8, and 6 $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ spaces – an improvement of about a factor of 100 in binding-energy accuracy over the corresponding dashed-line results. This has been achieved without taking into account any effects of $`QV`$. The interpretation is clear: once one has solved the long-distance problem through the resummation of Eq. (4), the nonperturbative effects (as we shall see below) of the hard core can be absorbed almost entirely into the included space, given an appropriate HO size scale $`br_c`$, where $`r_c`$ is the hard-core radius. This scale arises naturally out of the minimization, because the short-range repulsion is such a dominant feature of the potential.

The $`4\mathrm{}\omega `$ 0th-order energy minimum is not quite so impressive: the included space is sufficiently restrictive that a nonnegligible contribution from $`QV`$ remains even if $`b`$ is optimized. Conversely, the minimum at 10$`\mathrm{}\omega `$ is very flat, which means that there is a range of $`b`$ – a set of included spaces – in which the effects of $`QV`$ remain very small.

Fig. 4 gives our most important results. Fig. 4a illustrates the problem noted in the introduction, a perturbative expansion of Eq. (1) converges very poorly. Only at 10 $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ (not shown) do the fluctuations begin to damp out, though they remain at the $``$ 100 keV level even at high orders. In contrast, the expansion based on Eq. (4) (Fig. 4b) is highly perturbative. The 1st-order correction $`V(EQT)^1QV`$ for the 6,8, and 10 $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ calculations yields binding energies accurate to $`\text{ }<`$3 keV. We see that the 10 and 8 $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ calculations are effectively identical at and beyond 2nd order; the 10, 8, and 6 $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ results merge at 4th order. Even the $`4\mathrm{}\omega `$ 0th-order result is quickly corrected to an accuracy of 1.2 keV at 3rd order.

The accuracy of the unperturbed $`10\mathrm{}\omega `$ result of Eq. (4) is comparable to that achieved in  by direct summation of the high-momentum contribution to Eq. (1) to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{}}70`$. Perhaps more important, however, is the promising result that the remaining corrections associated with $`QV`$ are perturbative. This has important implications for the complexity of $`H^{eff}`$ in heavier nuclei, suggesting that the number of nucleons in the excluded space that must be linked by $`QV`$ can be limited. For example, $`V(EQT)^1QV`$ links only three nucleons. Rapid convergence in the perturbation expansion translates into a hierarchy of three-body, four-body, etc, contributions to $`V^{eff}`$ of rapidly diminishing importance.

So far the discussion has emphasized results and their interpretation rather than technical aspects. However, the technical aspects deserve discussion because many HO properties can be usefully exploited:

1) The operator $`T`$ is diagonal in a plane wave basis. The transformation into that basis is particularly simple for the HO, as the Fourier transform of a HO is a HO.

2) The operator appearing in the Green’s function, however, is $`QT`$, which is more difficult to treat. One can relate this Green’s function to the free Green’s function $`G_0=\frac{1}{ET}`$, at the cost of a matrix inversion in the included space. Using the included-space projector $`P=1Q`$ we define operators acting within the included space

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=PG_0P,\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=PG_0VG_0P,\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=PG_0VG_0VG_0P\mathrm{}$$
(7)
One can then write the perturbative expansion of $`H^{eff}`$ as

$`H^{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`(E\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^1)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^1\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^1\mathrm{\Gamma }_1)\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^1`$ (8)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_3\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^1\mathrm{\Gamma }_1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^1\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^1\mathrm{\Gamma }_1)\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^1+\mathrm{}`$ (9)
where the terms correspond to the contributions from $`T`$, $`V`$, $`(QV)^2`$, $`(QV)^3`$, …, respectively. Note that the matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^1`$ differs from the matrix $`P(ET)P`$ only in the entries where the bra and ket belong to the last included “shell”.

3) As $`T`$ is a sum over all relative momenta, an evaluation of $`G_0`$ in an independent-particle basis will generate a product of two-particle correlations (with a dependence on each relative partial wave). In contrast, with Jacobi coordinates $`G_0`$ is diagonal in momentum space

$$G_0=\frac{1}{E\frac{1}{2M}(\dot{k}_1^2+\mathrm{}+\dot{k}_{A1}^2)}$$
(10)
where $`\dot{k}_i`$ is the momentum associated with the $`i`$th Jacobi coordinate. Clearly the Jacobi basis is the simpler choice. As noted before, if we work to some order in perturbation theory, then the number of nucleons interacting at one time in the excluded space will be limited. Thus, in general, there will be “spectator” nucleons, and the matrix element will have a spectator dependence corresponding to the overlap integral weighted by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$. The importance of such spectator dependence in a HO-based ET was noted in . The integrals over spectator nucleons can be handled analytically and are reducible to finite sums over gamma and incomplete gamma functions.

These properties allow one to evaluate the HO matrix elements of the operators of Eq. (7), and thus the binding energy term by term in perturbation theory. In the present case of the deuteron the relative-coordinate matrix element is transformed into momentum space

$`n_f(\mathrm{}_fs)jmtm_t|\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha (E)|n_i(\mathrm{}_is)jmtm_t={\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{n_f+n_i+\alpha +1}}{\mathrm{}\omega _{eff}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4(n_f1)!(n_i1)!}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n_f+\mathrm{}_f+1/2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(n_i+\mathrm{}_i+1/2)}}\right]^{1/2}`$ (11)
$`\times {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}d\rho _f{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _f^{\mathrm{}_f+2}e^{\rho _f^2/2}}{\rho _f^2+E_0}}L_{n_f1}^{\mathrm{}_f+1/2}(\rho _f^2){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}d\rho _i{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _i^{\mathrm{}_i+2}e^{\rho _i^2/2}}{\rho _i^2+E_0}}L_{n_i1}^{\mathrm{}_i+1/2}(\rho _i^2)\rho _f(\mathrm{}_fs)jmtm_t|V_\alpha |\rho _i(\mathrm{}_is)jmtm_t`$ (12)
where $`\omega _{eff}=\omega /2`$, $`L`$ is a Laguerre polynomial, and $`E_0`$ is the dimensionless binding energy $`|E|/\mathrm{}\omega _{eff}`$. The momentum-space matrix element of the iterated potential is given by a simple recursion relation

$`\rho _f(\mathrm{}_fs)jmtm_t|V_\alpha |\rho _i(\mathrm{}_is)jmtm_t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}}{}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{\rho }{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\rho }^2}{\stackrel{~}{\rho }^2+E_0}}\rho _f(\mathrm{}_fs)jmtm_t|V_1|\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}s)jmtm_t`$ (13)
$`\times `$ $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}s)jmtm_t|V_{\alpha 1}|\rho _i(\mathrm{}_is)jmtm_t`$ (14)
where $`\rho _f(\mathrm{}_fs)jmtm_t|V_1|\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}s)jmtm_t`$ is given by

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{}\omega _{eff}}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑rr^2\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi }}j_\mathrm{}_f(\rho _fr)(\mathrm{}_fs)jmtm_t|V(rb_{eff})|(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}s)jmtm_t\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi }}j_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}(\stackrel{~}{\rho }r)$$
(15)
Note that all integration variables are dimensionless.

In summary we have shown that conventional HO-basis effective interactions calculations involve both long- and short-distance nonperturbative scattering. The effects of such scattering can be absorbed into the included space by an appropriate summation of the relative kinetic energy to all orders, followed by a tuning of the HO included space to absorb most of the hard-core scattering. This tuning results from minimizing the 0th-order energy as a function of $`b`$. In the test case of the deuteron, we find very accurate 0th order results and very rapid convergence in further orders of perturbation. Existing Jacobi coordinate SM codes can treat light $`1p`$-shell nuclei and three-body interactions , which should allow similar calculations to be done through 1st-order in the two-body potential (0th order in the weaker three-body potential) in these cases.

We thank Bob Wiringa for providing the $`v18`$ potential codes, and Silas Beane and Martin Savage for helpful discussions. This work was supported in part by US Department of Energy grants DE-FG03-00ER41132 and DE-FC02-01ER41187.