text:
# Strong Decays of Light Vector Mesons

## I  Introduction

The study of light-quark pseudoscalar and vector mesons is an important tool for understanding how QCD works in the non-perturbative regime. The pseudoscalars are important because they are the lightest observed hadrons and are the Goldstone bosons associated with dynamical chiral symmetry breaking. The ground state vector mesons are important because, as the lowest spin excitations of the pseudoscalars, they relate closely to hadronic $`\overline{q}q`$ modes that are electromagnetically excited. The decay of vector mesons to a pair of pseudoscalars proceeds via a P-wave interaction; this probes a different aspect of the meson Bethe–Salpeter \[BS\] amplitudes than does the electroweak decay constant which is essentially the projection of the relative wavefunction onto the origin of separation.

To calculate these coupling constants, we use an approach based on the Dyson–Schwinger equations \[DSEs\], which form an excellent tool to study nonperturbative aspects of hadron properties in QCD Roberts and Schmidt (2000). The approach is consistent with quark and gluon confinement Roberts and Schmidt (2000); Burden et al. (1992); Krein et al. (1992); Maris (1995), generates dynamical chiral symmetry breaking Atkinson and Johnson (1988); Roberts and McKellar (1990), and is Poincaré invariant. It is straightforward to implement the correct one-loop renormalization group behavior of QCD Maris and Roberts (1997), and obtain agreement with perturbation theory in the perturbative region. Provided that the relevant Ward–Takahashi identities \[WTIs\] are preserved in the truncation of the DSEs, the corresponding currents are conserved. Axial current conservation induces the Goldstone nature of the pions and kaons Maris et al. (1998); electromagnetic current conservation produces the correct electric charge of the mesons without fine-tuning. These properties are implemented here within the rainbow truncation of the DSE for the dressed quark propagators together with the ladder approximation for the Bethe–Salpeter equation \[BSE\] for meson bound states. The model we use has two infrared parameters. Previous work has shown this model to provide an efficient description of the light-quark pseudoscalar and vector mesons Maris and Roberts (1997); Maris and Tandy (1999). Furthermore, in impulse approximation, the elastic charge form factors of the pseudoscalars Maris and Tandy (2000) and the electroweak transition form factors of the pseudoscalars and vectors Maris and Tandy (2002); Ji and Maris (2001) are in excellent agreement with data. This suggests that the strong decays of the vector mesons should be well-described in impulse approximation without parameter adjustment.

The Euclidean metric that we employ facilitates the modeling of the gluon 2-point function or more generally the effective quark-quark interaction; it also is the metric within which practical DSE solutions are available in the literature. A complicating element is that solution of the BSE for meson bound states requires an analytic continuation in the meson momentum to reach the mass-shell. The resulting quark $`p^2`$ in the Bethe–Salpeter integral covers a certain domain in the complex plane that differs from the real spacelike axis by an amount that increases with meson mass. For low mass mesons such as $`\pi `$ and $`K`$, the required continuation of DSE solutions for the quark propagator is not difficult. For the ground state vector mesons, the difficulties are much greater but have been overcome directly Maris and Tandy (1999). For meson masses greater than about $`1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ the numerical requirements of this procedure become burdensome. Furthermore, complex plane singularities of rainbow DSE solutions for propagators limit this direct approach to mesons with masses below about 1.2 GeV Ahlig et al. (2001).

Here we test the reliability of an approximation that uses a Taylor expansion to make the continuation away from the real spacelike $`p^2`$ axis. Since information about quark propagators is then needed only on the real spacelike $`p^2`$ axis, this approximation is considerably easier to implement. It is similar in spirit to an approximation employed some time ago Jain and Munczek (1993). If the behavior for real momenta dominates the physics, low orders of a Taylor expansion should be effective. This work is an exploration of that conjecture since we can test against the direct complex plane results Maris and Tandy (1999) for BSE solutions for masses of $`\rho ,K^{}`$ and $`\varphi `$ within the same model. Independently of how the behavior of the propagators in the complex plane is obtained, the calculation of meson form factors or decays in impulse approximation requires that the relative quark momentum of each vertex amplitude be also continued to the complex plane. In the interests of consistency, we employ a Taylor expansion method for both vertex amplitudes and propagators in the calculation of decays.

The results from the Taylor expansion method are used to motivate a method for estimating the masses and BSE solutions for heavier mesons within this model without continuing the propagators into the complex plane. We test the accuracy of this real-axis approximation for the ground state pseudoscalar and vector mesons, and then produce estimates of the model results for $`m_{a_1}`$ and $`m_{b_1}`$ as well as the proposed exotic $`1^+`$ vector $`\pi _1(1400)`$.

In Sec. II we review the formulation that underlies a description of vector meson strong decays within a modeling of QCD through the DSEs and BSEs. We discuss the diagrams needed for a calculation in the impulse approximation for $`\rho \pi \pi `$, $`\varphi KK`$, and $`K^{}K\pi `$. In Sec. III we discuss the details of the model and we include a comparison with recent lattice-QCD results for the quark propagator. In Sec. IV we present our numerical results for masses and decays, and discuss the performance of the calculational technique. In Sec. V the technique for estimating the masses of heavier states is evaluated. A concluding discussion is given in Sec. VI.

## II  Vector Meson Strong Decays

We use the Euclidean metric where $`\{\gamma _\mu ,\gamma _\nu \}=2\delta _{\mu \nu }`$, $`\gamma _\mu ^{}=\gamma _\mu `$ and $`ab=_{i=1}^4a_ib_i`$. The invariant amplitude for the coupling of a vector state with helicity $`\lambda `$ and momentum $`p_1+p_2`$ to a pair of pseudoscalars (or scalars) having momenta $`p_{1/2}`$ has the form $`^\lambda =\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ϵ_\mu ^\lambda `$ where $`ϵ_\mu ^\lambda `$ is the polarization vector of the vector state, and the vertex which describes the coupling of the Lorentz component of the vector state to the pair of pseudoscalars has the form $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu =g(p_1p_2)_\mu `$ where $`g`$ is the coupling constant. In the case that the vector state and the pseudoscalar states are $`\overline{q}q`$ bound states with flavor labels $`a\overline{b}`$, $`c\overline{a}`$ and $`b\overline{c}`$ respectively, the impulse approximation for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^{ab,c}`$ can be expressed as

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^{ab,c}(P;Q)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{tr}_{\mathrm{sc}}{\displaystyle _k^\mathrm{\Lambda }}S^c(q)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ps}^{c\overline{a}}(q,q_+)S^a(q_+)`$ (1)
$`\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{a\overline{b}}(q_+,q_{})S^b(q_{})\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{ps}^{b\overline{c}}(q_{},q),`$
where $`q=k+P/2`$ and $`q_\pm =kP/2\pm Q/2`$, and $`\mathrm{tr}_{sc}`$ denotes a trace over color and Dirac spin. For convenience we have introduced $`Q=p_1+p_2`$ as the momentum of the vector, and $`P=(p_1p_2)/2`$. We denote the properly normalized BS amplitude at a vertex having an outgoing quark of flavor $`f_1`$ and momentum $`p_+`$ and an incoming quark of flavor $`f_2`$ and momentum $`p_{}`$ by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{f_1\overline{f}_2}(p_+,p_{})`$. The notation $`_k^\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mathrm{\Lambda }d^4k/(2\pi )^4`$ stands for a translationally invariant regularization of the integral, with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ being the regularization mass-scale. The regularization can be removed at the end of all calculations, by taking the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$. It is understood that the same regularization is applied to the calculated dressed quark propagators $`S(q)`$ and BS amplitudes appearing in Eq. (1), and that the quark propagators are renormalized at a convenient spacelike momentum scale before taking the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$.

For mesons with a unique quark flavor content, the physical vertices are given by the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^{ab,c}(P;Q)`$. For states like $`|\rho ^0>=(|u\overline{u}>|d\overline{d}>)/\sqrt{2}`$, linear combinations are required. We have, for example,

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^{\rho ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}[\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^{uu,d}(P;Q)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{dd,u}(P;Q)],`$ (2)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^{\varphi K^+K^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^{ss,u}(P;Q),`$ (3)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^{K^+K^+\pi ^0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^{us,u}(P;Q),`$ (4)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^{K^+K^0\pi ^+}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^{us,d}(P;Q).`$ (5)
The vertices for modes that differ from these by electric charge are obtained by quark flavor exchange. For example under isospin exchange of $`u`$ and $`d`$ flavors, the last two modes become $`K^0K^0\pi ^0`$ and $`K^0K^+\pi ^{}`$ respectively. In this work we use isospin symmetry in which $`u`$\- and $`d`$-quarks have identical strong interactions and properties except electric charge. Under these circumstances, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^{us,u}=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^{ds,d}=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^{us,d}`$ and there is only one independent $`K^{}K\pi `$ vertex.

The physical coupling constants for each $`vpp`$ decay are identified from the vertices at the mass shell according to

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^{vpp}(P;Q^2=m_v^2)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}P_\mu ^Tg_{vpp},$$
(6)
where $`P^T`$ is the component of $`P`$ perpendicular to the vector meson momentum $`Q`$. The decay width of a vector of mass $`m_v`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{1}{3}\underset{\lambda =1}{\overset{3}{}}\frac{\widehat{\rho }}{2m_v}|^\lambda |^2,$$
(7)
where $`\widehat{\rho }`$ is the invariant phase space factor, the invariant amplitude is $`^\lambda =\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ϵ_\mu ^\lambda `$, and $`ϵ_\mu ^\lambda `$ is the polarization vector. The explicit form is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }={\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{48\pi m_v^5}}\lambda ^{3/2}(m_v^2,m_{p1}^2,m_{p2}^2),`$ (8)
where

$$\lambda (a,b,c)=a^2+b^2+c^22ab2ac2bc,$$
(9)
and $`m_{p1}`$, and $`m_{p2}`$ are the masses of the pseudoscalar decay products.

### II.1  Dyson–Schwinger Equations

The dressed quark propagator and the meson BS amplitudes are solutions of their respective DSEs, namely

$`S(p)^1=Z_2i/p+Z_4m(\mu )`$ (10)
$`+Z_1{\displaystyle _q^\mathrm{\Lambda }}g^2D_{\mu \nu }(pq){\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^i}{2}}\gamma _\mu S(q)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu ^i(q,p),`$
and

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{a\overline{b}}(p_+,p_{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _q^\mathrm{\Lambda }}K(p,q;Q)S^a(q_+)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{a\overline{b}}(q_+,q_{})S^b(q_{}),`$
where $`D_{\mu \nu }(k)`$ is the renormalized dressed-gluon propagator, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu ^i(q,p)`$ is the renormalized dressed quark-gluon vertex, and $`K`$ is the renormalized $`q\overline{q}`$ scattering kernel that is irreducible with respect to a pair of $`q\overline{q}`$ lines. The quark momenta are $`q_\pm `$; the meson momentum is $`P=q_+q_{}`$ and satisfies $`P^2=m^2`$.

The solution of Eq. (10) is renormalized according to $`S(p)^1=i\gamma p+m(\mu )`$ at a sufficiently large spacelike $`\mu ^2`$, with $`m(\mu )`$ the renormalized quark mass at the scale $`\mu `$. In Eq. (LABEL:bse), $`S`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^i`$, and $`m(\mu )`$ depend on the quark flavor, although we have not indicated this explicitly. The renormalization constants $`Z_2`$ and $`Z_4`$ depend on the renormalization point and the regularization mass-scale, but not on flavor: in our analysis we employ a flavor-independent renormalization scheme.

To implement Eq. (LABEL:bse) while preserving the constraint $`P=q_+q_{}`$, it is necessary to specify how the total momentum is partitioned between the quark and the antiquark. The general choice is $`q_+=`$ $`q+\eta P`$ and $`q_{}=`$ $`q`$ $`(1\eta )P`$ where $`\eta `$ is the momentum partitioning parameter. The choice of $`\eta `$ is equivalent to a choice of relative momentum $`q`$; physical observables should not depend on the choice. This provides us with a convenient check on numerical methods.

The meson BS amplitude $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{a\overline{b}}`$ is normalized according to the canonical normalization condition

$`2P_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{tr}_{\mathrm{sc}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{P_\mu }}\{{\displaystyle _q^\mathrm{\Lambda }}\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{a\overline{b}}(\stackrel{~}{q}^{},\stackrel{~}{q})S^a(q_+)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{a\overline{b}}(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{q}^{})S^b(q_{})`$ (12)
$`+{\displaystyle _{k,q}^\mathrm{\Lambda }}\overline{\chi }^{a\overline{b}}(\stackrel{~}{k}^{},\stackrel{~}{k})K(k,q;P)\chi ^{a\overline{b}}(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{q}^{})\},`$
at the mass shell $`P^2=Q^2=m^2`$, with $`\stackrel{~}{q}=q+`$ $`\eta Q`$, $`\stackrel{~}{q}^{}=q(1\eta )Q`$, and similarly for $`\stackrel{~}{k}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{k}^{}`$. Thus the derivative in Eq. (12) acts only upon the propagators $`S`$ and the kernel $`K`$. For vector mesons, it is understood that one must contract and average over the Lorentz indices of the (transverse) BS amplitudes due to the three independent polarizations.

For pseudoscalar bound states the BS amplitude is commonly decomposed into Maris and Roberts (1997)

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(q_+,q_{})=\gamma _5[iE+/PF+/qG+\sigma _{\mu \nu }q_\mu P_\nu H],`$ (13)
where the 4 independent covariants have been constructed from the momentum basis $`q`$ and $`P`$ rather than from $`q_+`$ and $`q_{}`$. Hence the invariant amplitudes $`E`$, $`F`$, $`G`$ and $`H`$ are Lorentz scalar functions $`f(q^2,qP;\eta )`$ that have an explicit dependence upon the momentum partitioning parameter $`\eta `$. The dependence of the amplitudes upon $`qP`$ can be conveniently represented by the following expansion based on Chebyshev polynomials

$$f(q^2,qP)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}U_i(\mathrm{cos}\theta )(qP)^if_i(q^2),$$
(14)
where $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =qP/(qP)`$. For charge-parity eigenstates such as the pion, each amplitude $`E`$, $`F`$, $`G`$, and $`H`$ will have a well-defined parity in the variable $`qP`$ if one chooses $`\eta =1/2`$. In this case, these amplitudes are either entirely even ($`E`$, $`F`$, and $`H`$) or odd ($`G`$) in $`qP`$, and only the even ($`E`$, $`F`$, and $`H`$) or odd ($`G`$) Chebyshev moments $`f_i`$ are needed for a complete description.

Since a massive vector meson bound state is transverse, the BS amplitude requires eight covariants for its representation. We choose the transverse projection of the form

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu (q_+,q_{})=\gamma _\mu V_1+q_\mu /qV_2+q_\mu /PV_3`$ (15)
$`+\gamma _5ϵ_{\mu \alpha \nu \beta }\gamma _\alpha q_\nu P_\beta V_4+q_\mu V_5+\sigma _{\mu \nu }q_\nu V_6`$
$`+\sigma _{\mu \nu }P_\nu V_7+q_\mu \sigma _{\alpha \beta }q_\alpha P_\beta V_8.`$
This form is a variation of that used in Ref. Maris and Tandy (1999) that is simpler and easier to use in many respects. The invariant amplitudes $`V_i`$ are Lorentz scalar functions of $`q^2`$ and $`qP`$ and, for charge eigenstates, they are either odd or even in $`qP`$. For the $`1^{}`$ rho meson, $`V_3`$ and $`V_6`$ are odd, the other amplitudes are even. To reverse the charge parity, one simply reverses this odd-even property of the amplitudes.

## III  Ladder-rainbow model

We employ the model that has been developed recently for an efficient description of the masses and decay constants of the light pseudoscalar and vector mesons Maris and Roberts (1997); Maris and Tandy (1999). This consists of the rainbow truncation of the DSE for the quark propagator and the ladder truncation of the BSE for the pion and kaon amplitudes. The required effective $`\overline{q}q`$ interaction is constrained by perturbative QCD in the ultraviolet and has a phenomenological infrared behavior. In particular, the rainbow truncation of the quark DSE, Eq. (10), is

$$Z_1g^2D_{\mu \nu }(k)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu ^i(q,p)𝒢(k^2)D_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{free}}(k)\gamma _\nu \frac{\lambda ^i}{2},$$
(16)
where $`D_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{free}}(k=pq)`$ is the free gluon propagator in Landau gauge. The consistent ladder truncation of the BSE, Eq. (LABEL:bse), is

$$K(p_+,q_+;P)𝒢(k^2)D_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{free}}(k)\frac{\lambda ^i}{2}\gamma _\mu \frac{\lambda ^i}{2}\gamma _\nu ,$$
(17)
where $`k=pq`$. These two truncations are consistent in the sense that the combination produces vector and axial-vector vertices satisfying the respective WTIs. In the axial case, this ensures that in the chiral limit the ground state pseudoscalar mesons are the massless Goldstone bosons associated with chiral symmetry breaking Maris and Roberts (1997); Maris et al. (1998). In the vector case, this ensures electromagnetic current conservation.

The model is completely specified once a form is chosen for the “effective coupling” $`𝒢(k^2)`$. The ultraviolet behavior is chosen to be that of the QCD running coupling $`\alpha (k^2)`$; the ladder-rainbow truncation then generates the correct perturbative QCD structure of the DSE-BSE system of equations. The phenomenological infrared form of $`𝒢(k^2)`$ is chosen so that the DSE kernel contains sufficient infrared enhancement to produce an empirically acceptable amount of dynamical chiral symmetry breaking as represented by the chiral condensate Hawes et al. (1998).

We employ the Ansatz found to be successful in earlier work Maris and Roberts (1997); Maris and Tandy (1999)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒢(k^2)}{k^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^2Dk^2}{\omega ^6}}\mathrm{e}^{k^2/\omega ^2}`$ (18)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^2\gamma _m(k^2)}{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left[\tau +\left(1+k^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2\right)^2\right]}},`$
with $`\gamma _m=\frac{12}{332N_f}`$ and $`(s)=`$ $`(1\mathrm{exp}(\frac{s}{4m_t^2}))/s`$. The first term implements the strong infrared enhancement in the region $`0<k^2<1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ required for sufficient dynamical chiral symmetry breaking. The second term serves to preserve the one-loop renormalization group behavior of QCD. We use $`m_t=0.5\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`\tau =\mathrm{e}^21`$, $`N_f=4`$, and we take $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}=0.234\mathrm{GeV}`$. The renormalization scale is chosen to be $`\mu =19\mathrm{GeV}`$ which is well into the domain where one-loop perturbative behavior is appropriate Maris and Roberts (1997); Maris and Tandy (1999). The remaining parameters, $`\omega =`$ $`0.4\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`D=0.93`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ along with the quark masses, are fitted to give a good description of $`\overline{q}q`$, $`m_{\pi /K}`$ and $`f_\pi `$. The subsequent values for $`f_K`$ and the masses and decay constants of the vector mesons $`\rho ,\varphi ,K^{}`$ are found to be within 10% of the experimental data Maris and Tandy (1999), see Tables 1 and 3. A detailed analysis of the relationship between QCD and this Landau gauge, rainbow-ladder truncation of the DSEs with renormalization group improvement, can be found in the originating work Maris and Roberts (1997).

In Figs. 1 and 2 we compare the DSE model Maris and Tandy (1999) propagator amplitudes defined by $`S(p)=`$ $`Z(p^2)[i/p+M(p^2)]^1`$ with the most recent results in lattice QCD using staggered fermions in Landau gauge Bowman et al. (2002); Bowman (2002). These simulations were done with the Asqtad improved staggered quark action, which has lattice errors of order $`𝒪(a^4)`$ and $`𝒪(a^2g^2)`$. In previous such comparisons Maris (2000); Tandy (2001) the lattice data was less reliable. Fig. 1 shows both $`M(p)`$ and $`Z(p)`$ obtained with a bare lattice mass of $`ma=0.036`$ in lattice units, which corresponds to a bare mass of $`57`$ MeV in physical units. The DSE calculations use a current mass value of $`75`$ MeV at $`\mu `$ = $`1`$ GeV to match the lattice mass function around $`3`$ GeV; this current mass is about $`0.6m_s`$. There is agreement in the qualitative infrared structure of the mass function particularly in the way the infrared enhancement sets in. Since the lattice simulation produces the regulated but un-renormalized propagator, the scale of the field renormalization function $`Z`$ is arbitrary and only the shape is a meaningful comparison. For this reason, we have rescaled the lattice data for $`Z`$ so that they match the DSE solution above $`3`$ GeV. The ladder-rainbow DSE model typically produces a $`Z`$ that saturates much slower than does the lattice $`Z`$; this may signal a deficiency of the bare gluon-quark vertex.

The lattice work Bowman et al. (2002); Bowman (2002) also produced a linear extrapolation to the chiral limit mass function $`M_0(p)`$ and we compare this to the DSE result in Fig 2. In principle the leading UV behavior of this mass function is proportional to the chiral condensate. The extraction of this from earlier lattice data has been attempted but there are uncertainties still to be resolved Bonnet et al. (2002). We note here that above $`1`$ GeV there is excellent agreement between the present DSE model and the lattice results.

Recent reviews Roberts and Schmidt (2000); Alkofer and von Smekal (2001) put this model in a wider perspective. These reviews include a compilation of results for both meson and baryon physics with similar models, an analysis how quark confinement is manifest in solutions of the DSEs, and both finite temperature and finite density extensions. The question of the accuracy of the ladder-rainbow truncation has also received some attention; it was found to be particularly suitable for the flavor octet pseudoscalar mesons since the next-order contributions in a quark-gluon skeleton graph expansion, have a significant amount of cancellation between repulsive and attractive corrections Bender et al. (1996).

## IV  Results

### IV.1 Method of Calculation

In order to identify the meson mass $`m`$ from the BSE, Eq. (LABEL:bse), in Euclidean metric, it is convenient to first introduce the linear eigenvalue $`\lambda (P^2)`$ of the kernel, continue the equation in $`P^2`$ to the timelike region, and then find $`m`$ such that $`\lambda (m^2)=1`$. The BSE kernel involves terms linear in the 4-vector $`P`$ and they are given the continuation $`P(im,\stackrel{}{0})`$. Thus with the quark propagators written as $`S(p)=i/p\sigma _V(p^2)+`$ $`\sigma _S(p^2)`$, the kernel of the BSE involves the amplitudes $`\sigma _\alpha (q_\pm ^2)`$, where $`\alpha =V,S`$ and $`q_\pm ^2=q^2`$ $`m^2/4\pm iqmz`$. Here $`q=\sqrt{q^2}>0`$ with $`q^2`$ being the (spacelike) integration variable, $`1<z<1`$ is a direction cosine, and we have adopted equal momentum partitioning $`\eta =1/2`$ for convenience. The amplitudes $`\sigma _\alpha (q_\pm ^2)`$ are in principle required to be known in a parabolic domain of the complex $`q_\pm ^2`$ plane that includes the positive real axis and that extends symmetrically in the imaginary direction and in the negative (timelike) direction by amounts that grow with $`m`$. Previous work within the present approach and model has proceeded by use of the quark DSE to make the required analytic continuation of these propagator amplitudes. For $`m>1\mathrm{GeV}`$, the difficulty of the necessary numerical methods can outweigh the benefits of solution, and certainly accuracy becomes problematic. For this reason, we explore an approximate method.

The eigenvalue $`\lambda (P^2)`$ should be real to obtain a real mass (no meson decay mechanisms are present in the ladder BSE kernel) and thus one can speculate that the sub-domain consisting of the positive real axis for $`q_\pm ^2`$ might dominate the physics. To explore this systematically, we use a Taylor expansion of $`\sigma _\alpha (q_\pm ^2)`$ to reach the argument values off the positive real axis. Thus the only information needed about the quark propagator amplitudes from solution of the DSE are their values and derivatives on the Euclidean momentum domain. Within the BSE kernel we thus employ

$`\sigma _\alpha (q_\pm ^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _\alpha (q_E^2)+\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm ^2\sigma _\alpha ^{}(q_E^2)+\mathrm{},`$ (19)
where $`q_E^2=\mathrm{max}[0,\mathrm{}(q_\pm ^2)]`$ and $`q_E^2+`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm ^2=q_\pm ^2`$. For practical reasons we are interested only in low orders of this expansion.

### IV.2 Masses and Decay Constants

In Table 2, we show the results for the masses and decay constants of $`\pi `$ and $`K`$ through third order in this expansion compared to the model exact results obtained earlier via direct analytic continuation of the DSE solutions for propagators. Agreement to three significant figures is obtained at second order for $`\pi `$ while there is evidently still an error of about 2% in $`f_K`$ after third order for $`K`$.

For the $`\rho `$, we show in Fig. 3 the BSE eigenvalue $`\lambda (P^2)`$ for the first three orders of the Taylor expansion. We also display the model-exact behavior obtained by direct integration throughout the relevant complex domain. At the physical point $`\lambda =1`$, a converged value of the mass is evident in the figure at second order in the Taylor expansion method. However, the figure also suggests that at larger timelike $`P^2`$ a converged behavior is not yet clearly evident at third order.

The results in Table 3 for $`\rho ,K^{}`$ and $`\varphi `$ illustrate this in more detail. At second order the masses and $`f_\rho `$ are within 1% of the model exact results while $`f_K^{}`$ and $`f_\varphi `$ are within 5% and 3% respectively. Since $`K^{}`$ is not a charge conjugation eigenstate, the solution of the BSE is more difficult due the the lack of definite parity in the variable $`qP`$. Furthermore, one expects larger errors in the decay constants than in the masses since the former require normalization of the BS amplitudes via Eq. (12) and the derivatives therein add to the numerical difficulty. The third order results for the masses improve slightly for $`\rho `$ and $`K^{}`$ but $`m_\varphi `$ deteriorates slightly to acquire a 2% error; the decay constants remain within 5% of the exact values. The results do not indicate that the Taylor expansion has yet converged and this correlates with the behavior evident in Fig. 3. Table 3 also makes clear that a truncation of the eight Dirac covariants to just the dominant one ($`\gamma _\mu `$) will lead to a persistent error of at least 15-20%. In the case of the $`K^{}`$ this tends to raise the mass to the level where we are unable to determine a converged result.

The evident difficulty in use of the Taylor expansion approach as the mass of the state increases is most likely related to the occurrence of complex conjugate singularities of the employed quark propagator amplitudes $`\sigma _\alpha (q_\pm ^2)`$. In rainbow approximation, which we employ, the occurrence of complex conjugate logarithmic branch points with timelike values of $`\mathrm{}(q_\pm ^2)`$ is well-known for the fermion propagator in both QED Maris and Holties (1992); Maris (1994) and QCD Stainsby and Cahill (1992); Frank and Roberts (1996). For the present model, we find numerically that the non-analytic behavior nearest to the origin is at $`q_\pm ^2=0.207\pm i0.331\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ for the $`u/d`$ quark, and at $`q_\pm ^2=0.376\pm i0.602\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ for the $`s`$ quark. These points are outside the integration domains needed for the model-exact $`\rho `$ and $`\varphi `$ states respectively. However the critical bound state masses for which these singular points of the propagators would just begin to enter the integration domain are $`1.09`$ GeV for a $`\overline{u}u`$ state, and $`1.47`$ GeV for a $`\overline{s}s`$ state. A Taylor expansion should diverge at these points; it is probably the precursor of this that is beginning to show for the $`\rho `$ in Fig. 3.

### IV.3 Strong Decays

Since the $`\rho `$ and $`\varphi `$ appear as resonance poles in the timelike behavior of the charge form factors of the $`\pi `$ and $`K`$ mesons, the pole residues involve the coupling constants $`g_{\rho \pi \pi }`$ and $`g_{\varphi KK}`$. If the charge form factors, or more generally the $`\gamma \pi \pi `$ and $`\gamma KK`$ vertex functions, are formulated in impulse approximation, then the values of $`g_{\rho \pi \pi }`$ and $`g_{\varphi KK}`$ extracted from the pole residues will be in impulse approximation. The quality of the latter values will depend directly upon the quality of the strengths of the $`\gamma \pi \pi `$ and $`\gamma KK`$ vertex functions in the relevant timelike region. It is known that the impulse approximation for electromagnetic coupling to mesons conserves the electromagnetic current (and provides the correct charge) independent of model parameters as long as the meson BS amplitudes and photon-quark vertex are in ladder approximation and the quark propagators are in rainbow approximation Maris and Tandy (2000). We assume that the dynamics which produces the correct strength at the photon point will also produce a good quality strength at the mass shell of the vector mesons and hence render the impulse approximation good for $`g_{\rho \pi \pi }`$ and $`g_{\varphi KK}`$. The extension of this argument to cover the decay $`K^+K^+\pi ^0`$ is afforded by the study Ji and Maris (2001) of the semileptonic $`K(l3)`$ decay $`K^+l\nu _l\pi ^0`$ where $`K^+`$ appears as a pole in the $`W^+`$ vertex.

Here the coupling constants for the decays of $`\rho ,K^{}`$ and $`\varphi `$ to a pair of pseudoscalar mesons are calculated in impulse approximation according to Eqs. (1-6). The constraints on the two external Euclidean momenta $`P`$ and $`Q`$ needed to satisfy the three mass-shell conditions entail an analytic continuation to a complex value for at least one component. For example, in the $`\rho \pi \pi `$ case, with the momenta defined in Eq. (1), we have $`Q=(im_\rho ,\stackrel{}{0})`$, $`P^2=`$ $`m_\rho ^2/4m_\pi ^2`$ and $`PQ=0`$. A by-product of this is that two of the quark propagators and two of the meson BS amplitudes are needed in domains of the complex $`q^2`$-plane. In all cases we employ second order Taylor expansions about the closest point on the positive real axis. We also test the dependence upon the number of Dirac covariants retained for the vector and pseudoscalar BS amplitudes. With a maximum of eight for the vector and four each for the pseudoscalar BS amplitudes, there are a maximum 128 distinct quark loop integrals to be performed.

The results are summarized in Table 4 in comparison with experimental values obtained from decay widths. With just the dominant covariant employed for each meson ($`\gamma _5`$ for pseudoscalars, $`\gamma _\mu `$ for vectors, i.e, (v,p)= (1,1) in Table 4) the coupling constants that can be obtained are about 50% larger than experiment. It is known from work on the vector meson BSE that a very efficient truncation for soft physics can be obtained with a particular set of 5 covariants Maris and Tandy (1999). With use of this truncation together with all 4 covariants for each pseudoscalar, the results in Table 4 indicate that the dominant physics has been captured; the $`K^{}`$ decay is within 1%, the $`\varphi `$ is within 12% and the $`\rho `$ decay is 18% less than experiment. The addition of the remaining three transverse vector covariants leads to modest improvement giving a deviation from experiment of between 5% and 10% with the error being larger if the vector meson is lighter.

Since the width of the $`\rho `$ is almost 20% of its mass while the widths of the $`\varphi `$ and $`K^{}`$ are significantly less important, we expect the ladder approximation for the BSE kernel (which omits the strong channels $`\pi \pi `$, $`KK`$ and $`K\pi `$ respectively) to be less accurate for the $`\rho `$ than for the $`\varphi `$ and $`K^{}`$. Accordingly we speculate that this is largely the reason why the result for $`g_{\rho \pi \pi }`$ in Table 4 deviates from experiment twice as much (15%) as do the other decay constants.

The results shown in Table 4 compare well with coupling constants extracted from the behavior of electroweak form factors calculated, independently and in the same model, at timelike momentum near the vector meson poles Maris and Tandy (2001); Maris (2001). The general behavior of a pseudoscalar meson charge form factor $`F_P(Q^2)`$ in this domain is Maris and Tandy (2001)

$$F_P(Q^2)\frac{g_{vpp}m_v^2}{g_v(Q^2+m_v^2im_v\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_v)}.$$
(20)
Here $`m_v^2/g_v`$ is the $`v`$-$`\gamma `$ coupling strength calculated from the $`ve^+e^{}`$ decay, and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_v`$ is the vector meson width associated with the mass-pole. In the present work the ladder approximation to the BSE produces real mass-poles. The vector decay coupling constants obtained in this way from a fit to the calculated $`F_\pi (Q^2)`$ and $`F_K(Q^2)`$ form factors and from the form factor for the semileptonic $`K(l3)`$ decay $`K^+l\nu _l\pi ^0`$ are shown in Table 5. These results from a pole fit employ all relevant covariants for BS calculations and employ complex plane continuations where necessary. From this perspective the comparison with the left-most column of Table 4 provides a rough measure of the effectiveness of the Taylor expansion method for BSE solutions.

## V Estimate of Heavier States

In the present formulation, the nearby singularities discussed in Sec. IV.2 hinder a direct application of our rainbow-ladder model for masses above about 1.2 GeV. In particular, it is of interest to go beyond the present S-wave states to consider orbital excitations such as the axial vectors $`a_1`$ and $`b_1`$. One can however provide an indirect estimate as follows. Although the quark propagator amplitudes $`\sigma _\alpha (q_\pm ^2)`$ are complex-valued in the complex $`q_\pm ^2`$ plane, the ladder BSE eigenvalue $`\lambda (P^2)`$ is real and so is the mass. The evident cancellations may allow the real axis behavior of the quark amplitudes to dominate the outcome. As a test, we introduce a real-axis approximation by setting the imaginary part of the momentum argument of the quark propagator amplitudes $`\sigma _\alpha (q_\pm ^2)`$ to zero in the BSE kernel. Then, instead of Eq. (19), one has

$`\sigma _\alpha (q_\pm ^2)`$ $``$ $`\sigma _\alpha (q^2m^2/4),`$ (21)
where $`\alpha =v,s`$ and $`q^2>0`$. This is not quite identical to zeroth order in the Taylor expansion of Eq. (19) because the latter expands about the nearest point on the positive real axis, while in Eq. (21) the interval $`[m^2/4,\mathrm{}]`$ is used. Thus the required domain of the timelike real axis is treated exactly and this can be important for the heavier mesons.

To implement this approximation, we use the quark DSE to continue the propagator solutions to the timelike (negative real) $`p^2`$ axis. In this respect, it is advantageous to enhance numerical stability of the present model by modifying the infrared behavior of the factor $`(k^2)`$ in the small second term of the effective coupling, given in Eq. (18), so that, like the first term, it is identically zero at $`k^2=0`$. Its UV limit and range should remain much the same. To achieve this we use

$$\stackrel{~}{}(s)=\frac{1\mathrm{e}^{(s/4m_t^2)^2}}{s}.$$
(22)
With the real axis approximation of Eq. (21), the resulting modified model yields mass estimates that tend to become more accurate as the mass increases. From Table 2 $`m_{\pi /K}`$ are underestimated by 10% and $`f_{\pi /K}`$ are underestimated by 20% compared to the model-exact values. However, as shown in Table 3, the produced ground state vector meson masses $`m_\rho `$, $`m_K^{}`$ and $`m_\varphi `$ are within 4%, 7% and 1% of the model-exact values respectively; the decay constants deviate by 5%, 0% and 11% respectively. We therefore expect this real-axis approximation to provide mass estimates in the 1-2 GeV range with an error of about 5-10%.

For a $`u/d`$ quark axial vector state, the required general form of BS amplitude is simply $`\gamma _5`$ times Eq. (15). For the $`a_1`$ ($`1^{++}`$), amplitudes $`V_5`$, $`V_7`$ and $`V_8`$ will be odd in $`qP`$ and the rest will be even; for the opposite $`C`$-parity state $`b_1`$ ($`1^+`$) the opposite is true. The real axis approximation gives the following axial vector estimates: $`m_{a_1}`$ 0.891 GeV and $`m_{b_1}`$ 0.775 GeV. Hence the orbital excitation energy $`m_{a_1}m_\rho `$ is 0.150 GeV and thus a factor of 3 too small in this model. Indications from estimates attempted using the complex plane information are similar, as are recent results from a related study Alkofer et al. (2002). Models of the present rainbow-ladder type are significantly too attractive for these orbital excitations. Other studies of $`a_1`$ and $`b_1`$ based on the DSEs have used a separable approximation where the quark propagators are the phenomenological instruments Burden et al. (1997); Bloch et al. (1999); Burden and Pichowsky (2002) and these studies find more acceptable masses in the vicinity of 1.3 GeV. The manner in which the effective interaction is modeled is clearly important. Preliminary results from an extension of the present rainbow-ladder level through a 1-loop dressing of the quark-gluon vertex, while preserving the vector and axial vector WTIs, indicate that the separation of the axial vector states from the vector states increases significantly and becomes quite acceptable Watson and Tandy (2002).

Recently there has been interest in meson states with quantum numbers that are called exotic in the sense that they cannot be produced as $`\overline{q}q`$ bound states within static quantum mechanics where $`C`$-parity is given by $`C=(1)^{L+S}`$. The $`\pi _1`$(1400) state, formerly called the $`\widehat{\rho }(1405)`$, is a resonance with $`J^{PC}=1^+`$ that is supported by evidence from $`\pi d`$ scattering and $`\overline{p}d`$ annihilation Groom et al. (2000). In a covariant field theory treatment of bound states via the BSE, the extra degree of freedom represented by relative time, or relative energy, allows states to have an additional classification in terms of an associated time-parity quantum number $`\kappa `$ and $`C`$-parity is given by the more flexible form $`C=(1)^{L+S+\kappa }`$. The states with $`\kappa =\mathrm{odd}`$ have no static quantum mechanical $`\overline{q}q`$ analog and in this sense the exotic $`J^{PC}`$ obtainable from the ladder BSE are evidently a realization of the multi-particle features of covariance. Although a full understanding within field theory of the norm of these odd solutions of the BSE remains to be achieved Burden and Pichowsky (2002), examples from otherwise realistic models are of interest in connection within on-going experimental searches.

A covariant separable BSE model, closely connected with the present model, has recently produced Burden and Pichowsky (2002) $`m_{\pi _1}=1.439`$ GeV, i.e., about 100 MeV above the $`a_1`$, which in that model is $`m_{a_1}=`$ $`1.337`$ GeV. To estimate whether this is consistent with the present study, we use the real axis approximation to search for a $`J^{PC}=1^+`$ solution. The general form for such a BS amplitude is the same as Eq. (15) for the $`1^{}`$ amplitude except that one reverses the odd-even property of the invariant amplitudes in $`qP`$. That is, $`V_3`$ and $`V_6`$ are to be even, the rest are to be odd. This produces a $`\pi _1`$ solution 112 MeV above the $`a_1`$ within the same approach. In this respect we agree with Ref. Burden and Pichowsky (2002). We speculate that if the problem of the ground state orbital excitations being about 300 MeV too low is remedied, then the $`\pi _1`$ state in this model should rise by a similar amount to be around 1.3-1.4 GeV.

## VI  Discussion

We have studied vector meson strong decays within a Euclidean space model of QCD based on the Dyson–Schwinger equations truncated to ladder-rainbow level. The infrared structure of the ladder-rainbow kernel is described by two parameters; the ultraviolet behavior is fixed by the one-loop renormalization group behavior of QCD. Within the $`u/d`$ and $`s`$ quark sector we have obtained the coupling constants for the strong decays: $`\rho \pi \pi `$, $`K^{}K\pi `$, and $`\varphi KK`$. The deviation from experiment is between 5% and 10% with the error being larger if the vector meson is lighter.

Our method of calculation employed a Taylor expansion to continue the dressed quark propagators from the real spacelike $`p^2`$ axis into the domain of the complex plane required by the mass-shell condition of the meson bound states. We used this both for the solution of the BSE and for calculation of decays in the impulse approximation. The benefit is that knowledge of the dressed quark propagators is needed only along the real spacelike $`p^2`$ axis and this simplifies the numerical requirements considerably. The vector and pseudoscalar meson masses compared well with the model-exact results obtained previously by direct continuation of the dressed quark propagators into the complex plane via the DSE. In particular, the masses and electroweak decay constants at second order are all within 5% of the model-exact results. The increased deviation observed at third order and for heavier masses is attributed to nearby complex conjugate singularities in the propagators that are known to occur in rainbow solutions of the DSE.

For mesons heavier than the $`\varphi `$, these singularities hinder the applicability of Euclidean space implementations of the DSEs as presently formulated. The Taylor expansion method cannot lessen this difficulty. We therefore explored a real-axis approximation that exploited the cancellations of imaginary parts evident in the way the complex-valued quark amplitudes off the real axis enter the BSE kernel to produce real eigenvalues and masses. The real-axis approximation avoids complex plane singularities and, based on its performance for the pseudoscalar and vector mesons, we conclude it can be used for mass estimates in the 1-2 GeV region with an accuracy of about 5-10%. We then produced estimates of $`m_{a_1}`$ and $`m_{b_1}`$ for orbital excitations as well as $`m_{\pi _1}`$ for the proposed exotic $`1^+`$ vector state. We mentioned evidence that an extension beyond ladder-rainbow level to include dressing of the quark-gluon vertex could address our finding that the present model is too attractive for states just above the ground state vectors. With this, our estimate for $`m_{\pi _1}`$ is 1.3-1.4 GeV.

Work in progress Bhagwat et al. (2002) on the case of propagators having explicit complex conjugate poles, indicates that a reformulation produces well-defined integrals and integral equations above the critical masses. Beyond rainbow-ladder approximation, very little is known about the singularity structure. In one simplified model that includes a fully dressed quark-gluon vertex in a way that has allowed exploration of analytic properties, the non-analytic behavior is relegated to essential singularities at infinity Burden et al. (1992).

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was funded by the National Science Foundation under Grant Nos. PHY-9722429 and PHY-0071361; and by the Department of Energy under Grant Nos. DE-FG02-96ER40947 and DE-FG02-97ER41048. We acknowledge a grant of resources from the Ohio Supercomputer Center, Columbus, Ohio. The authors are grateful to Patrick Bowman and Tony Williams for kindly providing the lattice-QCD data and useful advice on usage.


format: text

text:
# Comments on Struyve and Baere’s paper on experiments to distinguish Bohmian mechanics from quantum mechanics

## Abstract

It is shown in detail why the arguments put forward by Struyve and Baere (quant-ph/0108038) against my conclusions are incorrect.

There are several strands to the arguments I used that seem to have been overlooked by the authors. Let me take them up one by one. But right in the beginning I would like to emphasize that two aspects of the discussion must be clearly separated from each other, the question of (a) the theoretical incompatibility between dBB and quantum mechanics, a question that can be settled with the help of gedanken experiments alone, and (b) the feasibility of real experiments to test this incompatibility.

Quantum Equilibrium Hypothesis

Without loss of generality let us restrict the discussion to the two-particle case. In dBB particle trajectories $`𝐱_1(t)`$ and $`𝐱_2(t)`$ are introduced through the guidance condition

$$𝐩_i=_{𝐱_i}S(𝐱_1,𝐱_2,t)$$
(1)
where $`S(𝐱_1,𝐱_2,t)`$ is the phase of the wave function $`\psi (𝐱_1,𝐱_2,t)`$ in quantum mechanics. (I use the notation $`𝐱=(x,y,z)`$.) Having introduced the trajectories, one then postulates that

$$\rho (𝐱_1(t_0),𝐱_2(t_0))=|\psi (𝐱_1,𝐱_2,t_0)|^2$$
(2)
at some time time $`t_0`$. Then the continuity equation guarantees that this relation is valid at all times $`t`$:

$$\rho (𝐱_1(t),𝐱_2(t))=|\psi (𝐱_1,𝐱_2,t)|^2$$
(3)
This is the only hypothesis in dBB that may be called the quantum equilibrium hypothesis (QEH). Writing it in the form

$$\rho (𝐱_1,𝐱_2,t)=|\psi (𝐱_1,𝐱_2,t)|^2$$
(4)
is misleading because this relation is a mathematical identity without any physical content. The guidance condition being the only input in dBB that is additional to quantum mechanics, it goes without saying that any analysis that does not take this condition into account and merely uses the identity (4) and the continuity equation will trivially reproduce the same results as quantum mechanics in every case.

Note that $`𝐱_1`$ and $`𝐱_2`$ are variables that cover the entire support of the wave function $`\psi `$, and hence the trajectories $`𝐱_1(t)`$ and $`𝐱_2(t))`$ must also cover the same support. Therefore, to realize the distribution $`\rho (𝐱_1(t),𝐱_2(t))`$ one must have an infinitely large number of particles of types $`1`$ and $`2`$ distributed in the prescribed manner $`\rho `$ at time $`t`$. One then has a full ensemble.

If we take any observable $`𝒪`$, its (space) average in dBB is then given by

$$\overline{O}=_t𝒪\rho (𝐱_1(t),𝐱_2(t))𝑑𝐱_1(t)𝑑𝐱_2(t)$$
(5)
This tells us that one has to integrate over all possible trajectories $`𝐱_1(t)`$ and $`𝐱_2(t)`$ at a fixed time $`t`$ in order to compute the average in dBB. This is the ensemble average.

Now consider a theoretically admissible situation in which one has particle $`1`$ at a definite position $`𝐗_1(t)`$ and particle $`2`$ at $`𝐗_2(t)`$ at some time $`t`$ and everywhere else the wave function (in dBB) is empty. Since, by hypothesis, empty parts of the wave function do not fire detectors, only two trajectories out of all the possible ones contribute to detections in this case. If one repeats the situation over and over again with identical copies of the system at different times $`(t_1,\mathrm{},t_i,\mathrm{},t_N)`$, the particles will be in different positions $`𝐗_1(t_i)`$ and $`𝐗_2(t_i)`$ each time with probabilities determined by the distribution function $`\rho (𝐗_1(t_i),𝐗_2(t_i))`$. If one collects all the results together and computes the time average of the joint detection probability, one would obtain (for two detectors $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ placed with their $`x`$ and $`z`$ coordinates the same and fixed)

$`P_{12}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`lim_N\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{t_1}{\overset{t_N}{}}}{\displaystyle _{D_1,D_2,t_i}}\rho (𝐱_1(t_i),𝐱_2(t_i))\delta (𝐱_1(t_i)𝐗_1(t_i))\delta (𝐱_2(t_i)𝐗_2(t_i))𝑑y_1(t_i)𝑑y_2(t_i)`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`lim_N\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{t_1}{\overset{t_N}{}}}\rho (𝐗_1(t_i),𝐗_2(t_i))=\overline{P}_{12}`$ (7)
where $`\overline{P}_{12}`$ is the space average. This result is, however, true only provided the guidance condition does not imply a constraint like $`Y_1(t_i)+Y_2(t_i)=0`$ on the trajectories for every $`t_i`$.

If there is a constraint like $`\delta (Y_1(t_i)+Y_2(t_i))`$ on the trajectories due to some symmetry, it will make the system non-ergodic. One would then obtain

$$P_{12}^{}=lim_N\mathrm{}\frac{1}{N}\underset{t_1}{\overset{t_N}{}}\frac{1}{\delta (0)}_{D_1,D_2,t_i}\rho (𝐱_1(t_i),𝐱_2(t_i))\delta (𝐱_1(t_i)𝐗_1(t_i))\delta (𝐱_2(t_i)𝐗_2(t_i))$$
(8)
$$.\delta (Y_1(t_i)+Y_2(t_i))dy_1(t_i)dy_2(t_i)\overline{P}_{12}$$
(9)
Nevertheless, if one computes the time average of an observable other than the joint detection probability, one would still obtain

$$O_{12}^{}=lim_N\mathrm{}\frac{1}{N}\underset{t_1}{\overset{t_N}{}}\frac{1}{\delta (0)}_{t_i}𝒪\rho (𝐱_1(t_i),𝐱_2(t_i))\delta (𝐱_1(t_i)𝐗_1(t_i))\delta (𝐱_2(t_i)𝐗_2(t_i))$$
(10)
$$.\delta (Y_1(t_i)+Y_2(t_i))dy_1(t_i)dy_2(t_i)=\overline{O}$$
(11)
because the constraint, being a consequence of the guidance condition, is necessarily consistent with the distribution function $`\rho `$ by hypothesis, and most importantly the restrictions on the integration variables coming from the supports of the detectors is removed.

All this shows that QEH is applicable to the full ensemble but not to individual processes that make up this ensemble. There could be information regarding individual processes determined by Bohmian dynamics (through the guidance condition) that are hidden in the full ensemble. The symmetric trajectories in a double-slit experiment with single particles is a clear example of how the information that the trajectories are symmetrical about the line of symmetry and do not cross, is masked in the distribution function $`\rho (𝐱(t))`$.

With this background let us now consider a gedanken experiment in which two particles are incident at a time on a screen $`S`$ with two point-like slits (the points being assumed to be limits of spheres). The source of the particles is assumed to be such that it produces entangled pairs of particles, one pair at a time, and it is so placed that out of all the pairs it emits, a significant number is produced such that one particle passes through each slit. The rest of the pairs are blocked by the screen $`S`$. On the far side of the slit two spherical waves will emerge from the two slits. I have shown by an explicit analytical calculation (quant-ph/0103126) that the trajectories of the particles will be symmetrical about the line of symmetry between the slits. The system is therefore non-ergodic. Let two detectors be placed at a fixed distance $`X`$ along the $`x`$-axis asymmetrically about the line of symmetry $`x=0`$. It follows from eqn. (8) that $`P_{12}^{}=0`$ in this case. Since $`\overline{P}_{12}0`$, this establishes the incompatibility.

If one widens the slits somewhat and uses Gaussian profiles, then, as Struyve and Baere have shown,

$$\sigma (t)Y_1(t)+Y_2(t)=\sigma (0)\sqrt{1+(\mathrm{}/2m\sigma _0^2)^2t^2)}$$
(12)
This spreading can be made as small as one desires by requiring that

$$(\mathrm{}/2m\sigma _0^2)^2t^2<<1$$
(13)
There is nothing in the theory that precludes such a condition. Since this spreading is calculable in any case, it can be taken care of in the design of the experiment.

Ergodicity

First of all, let me state that the definition (and proof) of ergodicity of quantum mechanics that I gave in quant-ph/0103126 is not due to me but can be found in standard text books such as that by Toda et al. Furthermore, the cross terms have not been ignored in the proof, as the authors seem to imply, but they can actually be shown to vanish in the limit of large time. In fact, this is the most crucial part of the proof supplied by mathematicians in the most general case. Having said that, let me also state that the proof of ergodicity of dBB given by Struyve and Baere is flawed by the trivial use of QEH in the form (4) as explained above.

Finally, let me comment on their equation (26),

$$_Mf^{}𝑑\mu =\overline{f}$$
(14)
What the authors have not stated is the condition under which this theorem is valid, namely, that the flow be such that there is no invariant subspace of the full phase space $`M`$ , i.e., $`\{\varphi _t(E)=EMEM\mathrm{or}\mathrm{}\}`$. In other words, this theorem is valid for ergodic systems only. Therefore there is no inconsistency in my arguments.

Double pendulum

In this case it is obvious that the Bohmian motion of the individual pendulums remains periodic (as in the classical case which is non-ergodic if the two eigenfrequencies are commensurate), and therefore the motion does not cover the entire phase space torus That is sufficient to prove non-ergodicity for commensurate frequencies. Since there is a general theorem that states that there must be at least one observable in a non-ergodic system whose space and time averages are different, the incompatibility with quantum mechanics is established.


text:
# Semigroups of left quotients - the layered approach

## 1. Introduction

We assume the reader has a familiarity with Green’s relations $`,,,𝒟`$ and $`𝒥`$ and the preorders $`_{},_{}`$ and $`_𝒥`$, as may be found in , and also with the ‘starred’ generalisations $`^{},_{^{}}`$ etc. The best reference for these is . For further detail concerning left orders we refer the reader to .

The notion of a left order in a semigroup was introduced by Fountain and Petrich in  and has been widely used since. Fountain and Petrich describe those semigroups that are left orders in completely 0-simple semigroups. We remark here that if $`S`$ is a left order in $`Q`$, $``$ is a congruence on $`Q`$ and $`Q`$ is regular, then $`S`$ is perforce straight . Subsequently, a number of papers have appeared characterising semigroups that are (straight) left orders in semigroups in various classes, for example . More recently, Theorem 4.4 of  gives a characterisation of straight left orders in arbitrary semigroups; we recap briefly below the approach of .

An ordered pair $`(_{\mathrm{}},_r)`$ of preorders on a semigroup $`S`$ is a $``$-pair if $`_l`$ is right compatible with multiplication, $`_r`$ is left compatible, $`_l_{^{}}`$ and $`_r_{^{}}`$. Clearly $`(_{^{}},_{^{}})`$ is a $``$-pair for any semigroup $`S`$.

###### Lemma 1.1.

Let $`S`$ be a subsemigroup of $`Q`$. Then

$$(_^Q(S\times S),_^Q(S\times S))$$

is a $``$-pair for $`S`$, the $``$-pair for $`S`$ induced by $`Q`$.

In particular the above applies when $`S`$ is a left order in $`Q`$.

For a $``$-pair $`(_{\mathrm{}},_r)`$, we denote by $`^{}`$ and $`^{}`$ the equivalence relations associated with $`_l`$ and $`_r`$ respectively. Notice that $`^{}`$ is a right congruence contained in $`^{}`$ and $`^{}`$ is a left congruence contained in $`^{}`$; $`^{}`$ denotes the intersection of $`^{}`$ and $`^{}`$ and we put

$$𝒢(S)=\{aS:a^{}a^2\}.$$

Notice that $`𝒢(S)𝒮(S)`$, where

$$𝒮(S)=\{aS:a^{}a^2\}$$

is the set of square cancellable elements of $`S`$. We put $`𝒟^{}=^{}^{}`$ and define the relation $`_j`$ by the rule that for any $`a,bS`$,

$$a_jb\text{ if and only if }a𝒟^{}ubv\text{ for some }u,vS.$$

Finally we say that for any $`a,bS`$

$$a𝒥^{}b\text{ if and only if }a_jb_ja,$$

so that if $`_j`$ is a preorder, then $`𝒥^{}`$ is the associated equivalence relation.

In the following definition, the slightly eccentric notation is that inherited from .

###### Definition 1.2.

 Let $`(_{\mathrm{}},_r)`$ be a $``$-pair for $`S`$. Then $`(_{\mathrm{}},_r)`$ is an embeddable $``$-pair if the following conditions and the duals (Eii)(r), (Ev)(r), (Evi)(r) and (Evii)(r) of (Eii)(l), (Ev)(l), (Evi)(l) and (Evii)(l) respectively hold.

(Ei) $`^{}^{}=^{}^{}`$.

(Eii)(l) For all $`b,cS`$, $`b_lc`$ if and only if $`b^{}dc`$ for some $`dS`$.

(Eiii) Every $`^{}`$-class and every $`^{}`$-class contains an element from $`𝒢(S)`$.

(Ev)(l) For all $`a𝒢(S)`$ and $`bS`$, if $`b_la`$, then $`ba^{}b`$.

(Evi)(l) For all $`a𝒢(S)`$ and $`b,cS`$, if $`b,c_la`$ and $`ba=ca`$, then $`b=c`$.

(Evii)(l) For all $`a𝒢(S)`$ and $`b,cS`$, if $`b,c_la`$ and $`ba^{}ca`$, then $`b^{}c`$.

Embeddable $``$-pairs are crucial in determining the existence of semigroups of straight left quotients, as the next result shows. We recall that a subset $`T`$ of a semigroup $`S`$ is right reversible, or satisfies the left Ore condition, if for any $`a,bT`$ there exist $`c,dT`$ such that $`ca=db`$.

###### Theorem 1.3.

 Let $`S`$ be a semigroup having an embeddable $``$-pair $`(_{\mathrm{}},_r)`$. Then $`S`$ is a straight left order in a semigroup $`Q`$ inducing $`(_{\mathrm{}},_r)`$ if and only if $`(_{\mathrm{}},_r)`$ satisfies the following conditions:

(Gi) $`𝒮(S)=𝒢(S)`$;
and

(Gii) If $`a𝒮(S)`$ then $`H_a^{}`$ is right reversible.

In some sense Theorem 1.3 is the final answer in the characterisation of straight left orders. However, earlier descriptions of straight left orders in semigroups from certain classes, for example in Clifford semigroups, concentrated on decomposing a semigroup $`S`$ into subsemigroups that are straight left orders, and then glueing together the semigroups of left quotients of the subsemigroups of $`S`$ to form a semigroup of left quotients of the entire semigroup $`S`$. For example, Theorem 3.1 of  states that $`S`$ is a left order in a semilattice $`Y`$ of groups $`G_\alpha ,\alpha Y`$, if and only if $`S`$ is a semilattice $`Y`$ of right reversible, cancellative semigroups $`S_\alpha ,\alpha Y`$. The latter are known by the theorem of Ore and Dubreil to be left orders in groups . A similar approach is taken to straight left orders in completely simple semigroups in . The approach of  and other early papers was thus to determine the global structure of a semigroup from the local structure. Other results, for example Theorem 5.12 of , do not use this approach explicitly, but nevertheless, the semigroups in question have a relative ideal series for which the Rees quotients are left orders in completely 0-simple semigroups.

The aim of this paper is to investigate the relation between a semigroup being a straight left order, and its decompositions into subsemigroups or Rees quotients that are straight left orders. To this end we introduce the idea of a partial order decomposition of a semigroup, that allows us to consider at the same time semilattice decompositions and decompositions into Rees quotients. This technique enables us to extend the main theorem of  to arbitrary semilattices of orders, find an alternative proof of Theorem 5.12 of , and a new characterisation of straight left orders in completely semisimple semigroups.

The structure of the paper is as follows. In Section 2 we prove a number of minor technical results needed for the remainder of the paper. In Section 3 we introduce the notion of a decomposition of a semigroup $`S`$ as a partial order $`P`$ of subsets $`S_\alpha ,\alpha P`$. Associated with each $`\alpha P`$ is a Rees quotient $`\overline{S_\alpha }`$.

Section 4 looks at the situation where $`S`$ is a straight left order in $`Q`$ and $`Q`$ is a partial order $`P`$ of subsets $`Q_\alpha ,\alpha P`$. From the definition of partial order of subsets we have that $`S`$ is a partial order $`P`$ of subsets $`S_\alpha =Q_\alpha S`$. We consider under what circumstances the associated Rees quotients $`\overline{S_\alpha }`$ are straight left orders. We investigate the relation between $`P`$ being associated with the $`_𝒥`$ order on $`Q`$ and $`P`$ being associated with the $`_𝒥^{}`$ order on $`S`$. Section 5 concentrates on the converse to the scenario in Section 4, namely, given a semigroup $`S`$ that is a partial order $`P`$ of subsets $`S_\alpha ,\alpha P`$, such each $`\overline{S_\alpha }`$ is a straight left order, when is $`S`$ a straight left order? Theorem 5.4 gives necessary and sufficient conditions for this to be the case.

The remaining sections of the paper are specialisations of Theorem 5.4. In Section 6 we consider semilattices of straight left orders. In Section 7 we look at straight left orders that are fully stratified, that is, the $``$-pair induced by the semigroup of left quotients is $`(_{^{}},_{^{}})`$. In the case where $`S`$ is idempotent connected abundant, we obtain an appropriately clean version of the results of Sections 4 and 5. This enables us to show that the semigroup of endomorphisms of finite rank of a stable basis algebra are a straight left order. The final section gives a new characterisation of straight left orders in completely semisimple semigroups.

## 2. Preliminaries

We begin with a technical result on zeroes.

###### Lemma 2.1.

Let $`S`$ be a straight left order in $`Q`$. Then

(A) $`S`$ has a zero if and only if $`Q`$ has a zero;

(B) if $`S`$ has a zero, then $`S`$ has no zero divisors if and only if $`Q`$ has no zero divisors.

###### Proof.

(A) If $`Q`$ has a zero $`0`$, then as $`0x`$ for some $`xS`$, we must have that $`0=xS`$. The converse follows from Proposition 2.8 of .

(B) Suppose that $`S`$ and $`Q`$ have a zero $`0`$ and that $`S`$ has no zero divisors. Let $`p,qQ\{0\}`$ with $`pa,qb`$ and $`a,bS\{0\}`$. Then

$$pqpbab$$

so that as $`ab0`$ we have $`pq0`$. Hence $`Q`$ has no zero divisors. The converse is clear. ∎

We recall that for a semigroup $`S`$, $`S^0`$ denotes $`S`$ with a zero adjoined. The following observation will be useful.

###### Lemma 2.2.

Let $`S`$ be a semigroup. Then $`S`$ is a straight left order in $`Q`$ if and only if $`S^0`$ is a straight left order in $`Q^0`$.

Next we recall from  that a semigroup $`S`$ is abundant if every $`^{}`$-class and every $`^{}`$-class of $`S`$ contains an idempotent. In a non-regular abundant semigroup $`S`$, the relationship between the idempotents in $`R_a^{}`$ and those in $`L_a^{}`$ for a given $`aS`$ need not be as strong as it is in a regular semigroup. In view of this, El-Qallali and Fountain  introduced the notion of an idempotent connected, or IC, abundant semigroup. An abundant semigroup is IC if for each $`aS`$ and each idempotent $`e_{^{}}a`$ ($`e_{^{}}a`$), there is an element $`bS`$ with $`ae=ba`$ ($`ea=ab`$) .

###### Lemma 2.3.

Let $`S`$ be an IC abundant semigroup. Then for any $`a,bS`$

$$a_{^{}}b\text{ if and only if }a^{}cb\text{ some }cS,$$

and dually for $`_{^{}}`$.

###### Proof.

If $`a^{}cb`$, then it follows from the definitions that $`a_{^{}}b`$.

Conversely, suppose that $`a_{^{}}b`$. Now $`a^{}e`$ and $`b^{}f`$ for some $`e,fE(S)`$. Hence $`e_{^{}}f`$, whence $`e=ef`$ and

$$a^{}efe^{}be.$$

But $`S`$ is IC abundant, so that $`be=cb`$ for some $`cS`$. ∎

Finally in this section we consider the restrictions of $`𝒟,𝒥`$ and $`_𝒥`$ on a semigroup of left quotients to a left order.

###### Lemma 2.4.

Let $`S`$ be a straight left order in $`Q`$ inducing $`(_{\mathrm{}},_r)`$. Then

$$𝒟^{}=^{}^{}=^{}^{},$$

consequently,

$$𝒟^{}=𝒟(S\times S).$$

Further,

$$_j=_𝒥(S\times S)\text{ and }𝒥^{}=𝒥(S\times S).$$

###### Proof.

If $`a,bS`$ and $`a^{}c^{}b`$ for some $`cS`$, then as $`Q`$ induces $`(_{\mathrm{}},_r)`$ we have that $`a𝒟b`$ in $`Q`$. Now $`S`$ intersects every $``$-class of $`Q`$, whence $`a^{}d^{}b`$ for some $`dS`$. Together with the dual argument we have that $`^{}`$ and $`^{}`$ commute, so that

$$𝒟^{}=^{}^{}=^{}^{}$$

as required. Clearly then $`𝒟^{}=𝒟(S\times S)`$.

Suppose now that $`a,bS`$ and $`a_jb`$. By definition, we have $`a𝒟^{}ubv`$ for some $`u,vS`$. From the previous paragraph and the fact that $`𝒟𝒥`$,

$$a𝒥ubv_𝒥b$$

in $`Q`$.

Conversely, let $`a,bS`$ and suppose that $`a_𝒥b`$ in $`Q`$. Then $`a=pbq`$ for some $`p,qQ`$. Choose $`u,vS`$ with $`pu`$ and $`qv`$ so that

$$a=pbqpbvubv$$

and so $`a𝒟^{}ubv`$ in $`S`$, giving that $`a_jb`$. ∎

It follows from Lemma 2.4 that if $`S`$ is a straight left order in $`Q`$ inducing $`(_{\mathrm{}},_r)`$, then $`𝒟^{}`$ is an equivalence relation and $`_j`$ is a preorder with associated equivalence relation $`𝒥^{}`$.

## 3. Partial orders of semigroups

Let $`P`$ be a partially ordered set and let $`S`$ be a semigroup. We say that $`S`$ is a partial order $`P`$ of subsets $`S_\alpha `$ if $`S`$ is the disjoint union of non-empty subsets $`S_\alpha `$, $`\alpha P`$ such that for any $`\alpha ,\beta P`$,

$$S_\alpha S_\beta \{S_\gamma :\gamma \alpha \text{ and }\gamma \beta \}.$$

Equivalently, there is a preorder $``$ on $`S`$ satisfying the condition that for all $`a,bS`$, $`aba`$ and $`abb`$, such that the classes of the associated equivalence relation on $`S`$ are indexed by $`P`$.

Our definition is, of course, motivated by that of a semilattice of semigroups. If $`P`$ is a semilattice and $`S`$ is a semilattice $`P`$ of subsemigroups $`S_\alpha ,\alpha P`$, then certainly $`S`$ is a partial order $`P`$ of the subsets $`S_\alpha ,\alpha P`$. However, there are certainly natural decompositions of semigroups as partial orders of subsets that are not necesarily associated with a semilattice decomposition.

###### Example 3.1.

The $`𝒥`$-class decomposition.

###### Proof.

For any elements $`a,b`$ of a semigroup $`S`$ we have $`ab_𝒥a`$ and $`ab_𝒥b`$. ∎

###### Example 3.2.

The $`𝒥^{}`$-class decomposition.

###### Proof.

We recall from  that for an element $`a`$ of a semigroup $`S`$, there is a smallest $``$-ideal $`J^{}(a)`$ containing $`a`$, where an ideal $`I`$ of $`S`$ is a $``$-ideal if it is a union of $`^{}`$-classes and of $`^{}`$-classes.

The relation $`_𝒥^{}`$ is defined on $`S`$ by the rule that $`a_𝒥^{}b`$ if and only if $`J^{}(a)J^{}(b)`$. It is easy to see that $`_𝒥^{}`$ is a preorder, with associated equivalence $`𝒥^{}`$. It follows from (3) of Lemma 1.7 of , that for any $`a,bS`$ we have $`ab_𝒥^{}a`$ and $`ab_𝒥^{}b`$. ∎

We remark that in a regular semigroup, every ideal is a $``$-ideal. Consequently, $`_𝒥=_𝒥^{}`$ and $`𝒥=𝒥^{}`$. Example 3.1 is thus a special case of Example 3.2.

Suppose now that $`S`$ is a semigroup and a partial order $`P`$ of subsets $`S_\alpha ,\alpha P`$. For each $`\alpha P`$ we associate two ideals of $`S`$,

$$I_\alpha ^S=\{S_\beta :\beta <\alpha \}\text{ and }J_\alpha ^S=\{S_\beta :\beta \alpha \}$$

(we allow the possibility that $`I_\alpha ^S=\mathrm{}`$). We can thus form the Rees quotient

$$\overline{S_\alpha }=J_\alpha ^S/I_\alpha ^S=S_\alpha \{I_\alpha ^S\},$$

or, in the case where $`I_\alpha ^S=\mathrm{}`$, we put $`\overline{S_\alpha }=S_\alpha `$. We can think of these Rees quotients as ‘slices’ describing the local structure of $`S`$, and of $`S`$ as being built up as ‘layers’ of these slices. In the next sections we consider the relationship between $`S`$ being a straight left order and the Rees quotients $`\overline{S_\alpha },\alpha P`$, being straight left orders.

## 4. Slicing

Throughout this section, $`S`$ denotes a straight left order in a semigroup $`Q`$, where $`Q`$ is a partial order $`P`$ of subsets $`Q_\alpha ,\alpha P`$. For $`\alpha P`$ put

$$S_\alpha =Q_\alpha S.$$

Notice that as $`\overline{Q_\alpha }`$ is a quotient of ideals of $`Q`$, the set of non-zero elements $`Q_\alpha `$ is a union of $`𝒥`$-classes of $`Q`$. Since $`S`$ intersects every $``$-class of $`Q`$, certainly each $`S_\alpha \mathrm{}`$. Clearly then $`S`$ is then a partial order $`P`$ of subsets $`S_\alpha ,\alpha P`$.

The semigroup $`Q`$ is regular, consequently, for non-zero elements $`p,q`$ of $`\overline{Q_\alpha }`$,

$$q_{}p\text{ in }\overline{Q_\alpha }\text{ if and only if }q_{}p\text{ in }Q$$

and

$$q_{}p\text{ in }\overline{Q_\alpha }\text{ if and only if }q_{}p\text{ in }Q.$$

Let $`(_{\mathrm{}},_r)`$ denote the $``$-pair on $`S`$ induced by $`Q`$. Since each $`Q_\alpha `$ is a union of $`𝒥`$-classes, we must have that $`S_\alpha `$ is a union of $`^{}`$-classes and of $`^{}`$-classes.

We remark that for each $`\alpha P`$, $`\overline{S_\alpha }`$ may be regarded as a subsemigroup of $`\overline{Q_\alpha }`$. Clearly $`I_\alpha ^Q=\mathrm{}`$ if and only if $`I_\alpha ^S=\mathrm{}`$. In the case where $`I_\alpha ^Q\mathrm{}`$, we identify the zeroes $`\{I_\alpha ^Q\}`$ and $`\{I_\alpha ^S\}`$ of $`\overline{Q_\alpha }`$ and $`\overline{S_\alpha }`$.

###### Lemma 4.1.

For each $`\alpha P`$, $`\overline{S_\alpha }`$ is a straight weak left order in $`\overline{Q_\alpha }`$.

###### Proof.

If $`q\overline{Q_\alpha }`$, then either $`q=0=0{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}0`$, or $`qQ_\alpha `$ and $`q=a{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}b`$ where $`a,bS`$ and $`ab`$ in $`Q`$. Since $`qb`$ in $`Q`$ we must have that $`a,bS_\alpha `$ and $`ab`$ in $`\overline{Q_\alpha }`$. ∎

From Lemma 4.1 we certainly have the following.

###### Corollary 4.2.

For any $`\alpha P`$, $`\overline{S_\alpha }`$ is a straight left order in $`\overline{Q_\alpha }`$ if and only if for any $`aS_\alpha `$,

$$a^{}a^2\text{ in }\overline{S_\alpha }\text{ implies that }a^{}a^2\text{ in }S.$$

In general we do not have enough control over the square cancellable elements, for the condition in Corollary 4.2 to hold. However, in two cases of note we have the required result.

###### Proposition 4.3.

Let $`\alpha P`$. If $`Q`$ is completely regular or $`S`$ is abundant and $`J_\alpha ^S`$ and $`I_\alpha ^S`$ are $``$-ideals, then $`\overline{S_\alpha }`$ is a straight left order in $`\overline{Q_\alpha }`$.

###### Proof.

We need only consider (ii). In this case the condition required in Corollary 4.2 follows from Lemma 2.5 of . ∎

The canonical decomposition of a semigroup of left quotients $`Q`$ as a partial order $`P`$ of subsets $`Q_\alpha ,\alpha P`$, arises from the preorder $`_𝒥`$, as in Example 3.1. In this case the Rees quotients $`\overline{Q_\alpha }`$ are, of course, the principal factors of $`Q`$, and we abuse terminology by saying ‘$`P`$ is the $`_𝒥`$-order on $`Q`$’. The canonical decomposition of a left order $`S`$ as a partial order $`P`$ of subsets $`S_\alpha ,\alpha P`$, arises from the preorder $`_𝒥^{}`$, as in Example 3.2; in this case we say ‘$`P`$ is the $`_𝒥^{}`$-order on $`S`$’. If $`P`$ arises from the preorder $`_j`$ we say ‘$`P`$ is the $`_j`$-order’. The relations $`_𝒥`$ on $`Q`$ and $`_𝒥^{}`$ and $`_j`$ on $`S`$ are, of course, related, and we see examples of this in the following proposition and in Sections 7 and 8.

###### Proposition 4.4.

Let $`S`$ be a straight left order in $`Q`$ where $`Q`$ induces $`(_{\mathrm{}},_r)`$. Suppose that $`Q`$ is a partial order $`P`$ of subsets $`Q_\alpha ,\alpha P`$, so that $`S`$ is a partial order $`P`$ of subsets $`S_\alpha =SQ_\alpha ,\alpha P`$. Then $`P`$ is the $`_𝒥`$-order on $`Q`$ if and only if $`P`$ is the $`_j`$-order on $`S`$.

Moreover, if $`S`$ is stratified in $`Q`$, that is $`^{}=^{}`$ and $`^{}=^{}`$, then $`P`$ is the $`𝒥`$-order on $`Q`$ if and only if $`P`$ is the $`𝒥^{}`$-order on $`S`$.

###### Proof.

The first part follows from Lemma 2.4 and the facts that $`S`$ intersects every $``$-class of $`Q`$ and each $`Q_\alpha `$ is a union of $``$-classes.

For the remainder of the proof, we assume that $`S`$ is stratified in $`Q`$.

Suppose that $`P`$ is the $`_𝒥`$-order on $`Q`$, so that $`P`$ is the $`_j`$-order on $`S`$. Let $`a,bS`$ and suppose that $`a_jb`$, so that $`a𝒟^{}ubv`$ for some $`u,vS`$. We have that $`𝒟^{}=𝒟^{}`$, so that by Lemma 1.7 of , $`a_𝒥^{}b`$ in $`S`$. On the other hand, if $`c,dS`$ and $`c_𝒥^{}d`$, then again by Lemma 1.7 of , there are elements $`c_0,c_1,\mathrm{},c_nS`$, say $`c_iS_{\alpha _i}`$, and $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,y_1,\mathrm{},y_nS^1`$ such that $`d=c_0,c=c_n`$ and $`(c_i,x_ic_{i1}y_i)𝒟^{}`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$. Since $`𝒟^{}=𝒟^{}`$ and each $`S_\alpha `$ is a union of $`𝒟^{}`$-classes, we have

$$\alpha _0\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n.$$

Thus $`c_𝒥d`$ in $`Q`$ so that $`c_jd`$ in $`S`$. Consequently, $`P`$ is the $`_𝒥^{}`$-order on $`S`$.

Finally, suppose that $`P`$ is the $`_𝒥^{}`$-order on $`S`$. Let $`pQ_\alpha `$ and $`qQ_\beta `$, and choose $`aS_\alpha ,bS_\beta `$ with $`pa`$ and $`qb`$.

If $`\alpha \beta `$, then $`a_𝒥^{}b`$, so that by Lemma 1.7 of , there are elements $`a_0,a_1,\mathrm{},a_nS`$, $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,y_1,\mathrm{},y_nS^1`$ such that $`b=a_0,a=a_n`$ and $`(a_i,x_ia_{i1}y_i)𝒟^{}`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$. Hence in $`Q`$, $`a_i𝒟x_ia_{i1}y_i`$ so that $`a_i𝒟^{}x_ia_{i1}y_i`$ and

$$a=a_n_ja_{n1}_j\mathrm{}_ja_0=b.$$

It follows that $`a_𝒥b`$ in $`Q`$, whence $`p_𝒥q`$ in $`Q`$.

Conversely, if $`p_𝒥q`$, then $`a_jb`$ in $`S`$ so that $`a𝒟^{}ubv`$ for some $`u,vS`$, giving that $`\alpha \beta `$ as required. ∎

## 5. Layering

Suppose that a semigroup $`S`$ is a partial order $`P`$ of subsets $`S_\alpha ,\alpha P`$ such that each $`\overline{S_\alpha }`$ is a straight left order in a semigroup $`W_\alpha `$. The aim of this section is to give necessary and sufficient conditions on $`S`$ such that $`S`$ is a straight left order in $`Q`$ and $`Q`$ is a partial order $`P`$ of subsets $`Q_\alpha `$ such that $`\overline{Q_\alpha }=W_\alpha `$ for each $`\alpha P`$.

We vary standard notation slightly by letting $`_{\mathrm{}}^\alpha `$ and $`_r^\alpha `$ be the restriction to $`S_\alpha `$ of the preorders induced on $`\overline{S_\alpha }`$ by $`_{}`$ and $`_{}`$ in $`W_\alpha `$ (that is, we exclude from the preorders pairs of the form $`(I_\alpha ^S,x)`$). We denote by $`_\alpha ^{}`$ and $`_\alpha ^{}`$ the equivalences on $`S_\alpha `$ induced by $`_{\mathrm{}}^\alpha `$ and $`_r^\alpha `$ respectively; thus $`_\alpha ^{}`$ and $`_\alpha ^{}`$ are the restrictions of Green’s relations $``$ and $``$ on $`W_\alpha `$ to the elements of $`S_\alpha `$.

###### Definition 5.1.

The relations $`_{\mathrm{}},_r`$ are defined on the elements of $`S`$ by the rule that for any $`a,bS`$,

$$a_{\mathrm{}}b\text{ if and only if }a,cbS_\alpha \text{ and }a_\alpha ^{}cb$$

for some $`\alpha P`$. The relation $`_r`$ is defined dually.

In the above definition, if $`a,cbS_\alpha `$ and $`a_\alpha ^{}cb`$, then choosing a square cancellable element $`x`$ of $`\overline{S_\alpha }`$ in the $`_\alpha ^{}`$-class of $`cb`$, we have $`a_\alpha ^{}xcb`$ and $`xcS_\alpha `$ as $`J_\alpha ^S`$ and $`I_\alpha ^S`$ are ideals. We may then immediately deduce the following.

###### Lemma 5.2.

Let $`a,bS_\alpha `$. Then

$$a_{\mathrm{}}b\text{ if and only if }a_{\mathrm{}}^\alpha b$$

and dually,

$$a_rb\text{ if and only if }a_r^\alpha b.$$

###### Lemma 5.3.

For any $`a,bS`$,

$$a_{\mathrm{}}b_{\mathrm{}}a,$$

if and only if $`a,bS_\alpha `$ for some $`\alpha P`$ and $`a_\alpha ^{}b`$. The dual result holds for $`_r`$.

###### Proof.

Suppose that $`a,bS`$ and

$$a_{\mathrm{}}b_{\mathrm{}}a.$$

We have that $`a,cbS_\alpha `$ and $`b,daS_\beta `$ for some $`\alpha ,\beta P`$ and $`c,dS`$. It follows from the definition of partial order of subsets that $`\alpha =\beta `$ and and so $`a_\alpha ^{}b`$ by Lemma 5.2.

Conversely, if $`a,bS_\alpha `$ and $`a_\alpha ^{}b`$, then $`a_{\mathrm{}}^\alpha b`$ and $`b_{\mathrm{}}^\alpha a`$. By Lemma 5.2 we have that

$$a_{\mathrm{}}b_{\mathrm{}}a$$

as required. ∎

Consequent upon the previous result, if $`_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`_r`$ are transitive, then the associated equivalence relations $`^{}`$ and $`^{}`$ are respectively the union of the equivalence relations $`_\alpha ^{}`$ and $`_\alpha ^{},\alpha P`$.

Recall that if $`T`$ is a left order in semigroups $`Q`$ and $`W`$, then $`Q`$ is isomorphic to $`W`$ over $`S`$ if there is an isomorphism from $`Q`$ to $`W`$ that restricts to the identity on $`S`$.

###### Theorem 5.4.

The following conditions on the semigroup $`S`$ are equivalent:

(I) $`(_{\mathrm{}},_r)`$ is an embeddable $``$-pair and $`𝒢(S)=𝒮(S)`$;

(II) $`(_{\mathrm{}},_r)`$ is a $``$-pair such that

for all $`a,b,cS`$ with $`a𝒮(S)`$,

$$a^2b^{}a^2c\text{ implies that }ab^{}ac$$

and $`𝒮(S)=𝒢(S)`$;

(III) $`S`$ is a straight left order in a semigroup $`Q`$ inducing $`(_l,_r)`$.

If any of these conditions hold, then $`Q`$ is a partial order $`P`$ of subsets $`Q_\alpha ,\alpha P`$, such that each $`\overline{S_\alpha }`$ is a straight left order in $`\overline{Q}_\alpha `$ and $`\overline{Q_\alpha }`$ is isomorphic to $`W_\alpha `$ over $`\overline{S_\alpha }`$.

###### Proof.

(III) implies (I) This is immediate from Theorem 4.4 of .

(I) implies (II) Suppose that $`a,b,cS`$ with $`a𝒮(S)`$ and $`a^2b^{}a^2c`$. Since $`(_{\mathrm{}},_r)`$ is an embeddable $``$-pair, we have $`ab,ac_ra`$ by condition (Eii)(r), so that by (Evii)(r), $`ab^{}ac`$.

(II) implies (III) By the construction of the relation $`^{}`$ condition G(ii) holds and we are given that G(i) also holds.

We verify that $`(_{\mathrm{}},_r)`$ is an embeddable $``$-pair. Since each $`S_\alpha `$ is a union of $`^{}`$-classes and $`^{}`$-classes and $`_\alpha ^{}_\alpha ^{}=_\alpha ^{}_\alpha ^{}`$ we have that (Ei) holds. Conditions (Eii)(l) and (Eii)(r) follow from Definition 3.1 and the remarks preceding the statement of the theorem. Clearly (Eiii) holds.

We proceed via a series of lemmas to verify the remaining conditions.

###### Lemma 5.5.

Let $`a𝒢(S)`$ and let $`bS`$ with $`b_{\mathrm{}}a`$. Then $`b^{}ba`$.

###### Proof.

We have that $`b_\alpha ^{}ca`$ for some $`\alpha P`$ and $`b,cS_\alpha `$. Now $`^{}`$ is a left congruence so that $`ca^{}ca^2`$ and in $`\overline{S_\alpha }`$,

$$b=qcaqca^2=ba$$

for some $`qW_\alpha `$. Hence $`b_\alpha ^{}ba`$ and so $`b^{}ba`$ as required. ∎

The above lemma show that condition (Ev)(l) holds; the proof for (Ev)(r) is dual.

###### Lemma 5.6.

Let $`a𝒢(S)`$ and let $`b,cS`$ with $`b,c_ra`$ and $`ab^{}ac`$. Then $`b^{}c`$.

###### Proof.

By condition (Eii)(r) we have that $`b^{}ax`$ and $`c^{}ay`$ for some $`x,yS`$. Since $`^{}`$ is a left congruence,

$$a^2x^{}ab^{}ac^{}a^2y$$

so that by the given hypotheses of (II) we have that $`ax^{}ay`$ and so $`b^{}c`$. ∎

###### Lemma 5.7.

Let $`a𝒢(S)`$ and let $`b,cS`$ with $`b,c_ra`$ and $`ab=ac`$. Then $`b=c`$.

###### Proof.

By condition (Ev)(r) we have

$$b^{}ab=ac^{}c.$$

Hence $`b_\alpha ^{}ab`$ for some $`\alpha P`$. Since $`\overline{S_\alpha }`$ is a straight left order in $`W_\alpha `$ we may apply Lemma 4.7 of  to deduce the existence of $`h𝒮(S),kS`$ with $`b^{}h^{}k`$ and

$$hb=kab.$$

We know that $`^{}^{}`$ so that $`hc=kac`$ and

$$hb=kab=kac=hc.$$

By Lemma 5.6 we have that $`b^{}c`$ and so in $`W_\alpha `$,

$$b=h{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}hb=h{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}hc=c.$$

###### Lemma 5.8.

Let $`a𝒢(S)`$ and $`b,cS`$ with $`b,c_{\mathrm{}}a`$ and $`ba^{}ca`$. Then $`b^{}c`$.

###### Proof.

By condition (Eii)(l) we have that

$$b^{}xa\text{ and }c^{}ya$$

for some $`x,yS`$. Since $`^{}`$ is a right congruence

$$xa^2^{}ba^{}ca^{}ya^2$$

and so

$$xa^2_\alpha ^{}ya^2$$

for some $`\alpha P`$. By Lemma 4.7 of ,

$$hxa^2=kya^2$$

for some $`h𝒮(S),kS`$ and

$$h^{}k^{}xa^2^{}xa.$$

We know that $`^{}^{}`$ and so

$$hxa=kya,$$

giving by condition (Ev)(r)

$$xa^{}hxa=kya_{\mathrm{}}ya.$$

Hence $`b_{\mathrm{}}c`$; dually, $`c_{\mathrm{}}b`$ so that $`b^{}c`$ as required. ∎

###### Lemma 5.9.

Let $`a𝒢(S)`$ and let $`b,cS`$ with $`b,c_{\mathrm{}}a`$ and $`ba=ca`$. Then $`b=c`$.

###### Proof.

From Lemma 5.8 we have that $`b^{}c`$, say $`b_\alpha ^{}c`$ and so by Lemma 4.7 of , $`hb=kc`$ for some $`h𝒮(S),kS`$ with $`h^{}k^{}b`$. By condition (Ev)(l)

$$b^{}ba=ca^{}c.$$

From

$$hba=kca=kba$$

we deduce that $`hb=kb`$ and $`hc=kc`$. Hence

$$hb=kc=hc.$$

In $`W_\alpha `$ we then have

$$b=h{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}hb=h{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}hc=c.$$

Lemmas 5.9,5.7,5.8 and 5.6 show that conditions (Evi)(l), (Evi)(r), (Evii)(l) and (Evii)(r) hold, respectively.

We call upon Theorem 4.4 of  to deduce that $`S`$ is a straight left order in $`Q`$ where $`Q`$ induces $`(_{\mathrm{}},_r)`$.

Suppose now that any of the equivalent conditions (I) to (III) holds. We show that $`Q`$ is a partial order $`P`$ of subsets $`Q_\alpha `$, $`\alpha P`$.

Let $`qQ`$. Since $`S`$ is a straight left order in $`Q`$, $`q=h{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}k`$ where $`h𝒮(S),kS`$ and $`h^{}k`$ in $`S`$. Hence $`h,kS_\alpha `$ for some $`\alpha P`$ and $`qk`$ in $`Q`$. Thus

$$Q=\{Q_\alpha :\alpha P\}$$

where

$$Q_\alpha =\{qQ:q^{}k,kS_\alpha \}.$$

Since each $`S_\alpha `$ is a union of $`^{}`$-classes, $`Q_\alpha Q_\beta =\mathrm{}`$ for $`\alpha \beta `$ and $`S_\alpha =SQ_\alpha `$.

Let $`pQ_\alpha ,qQ_\beta `$. Then $`ph`$, $`qk`$ for some $`hS_\alpha ,kS_\beta `$. Now

$$pqpkhk$$

and $`hkS_\gamma `$ for some $`\gamma \alpha ,\beta `$. Since each $`S_\gamma `$ is a union of $`^{}`$-classes and of $`^{}`$-classes, it follows that $`pqQ_\gamma `$. Hence $`Q`$ is a partial order of the subsets $`Q_\alpha ,\alpha P`$.

For each $`\alpha P`$ we let $`\overline{Q_\alpha }`$ be the Rees quotient associated with $`Q_\alpha `$. From Corollary 4.2 and the construction of the relation $`^{}`$, we have that $`\overline{S_\alpha }`$ is a straight left order in $`\overline{Q_\alpha }`$.

Let $`a,b\overline{S_\alpha }`$. If $`a=\{I_\alpha ^S\}`$ then $`a`$ is the zero of both $`W_\alpha `$ and $`\overline{Q_\alpha }`$, so that $`a_{}b`$ in both $`W_\alpha `$ and $`\overline{Q_\alpha }`$. Otherwise, $`aS_\alpha `$ and

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill a_{}b\text{ in }W_\alpha & & bS_\alpha \text{ and }a^{}bc,\text{ for some }cS_\alpha \hfill \\ & & bS_\alpha \text{ and }a^{}bc,\text{ for some }cS\hfill \\ & & bS_\alpha \text{ and }a_rb\hfill \\ & & bS_\alpha \text{ and }a_{}b\text{ in }Q\hfill \\ & & bS_\alpha \text{ and }a_{}b\text{ in }\overline{Q_\alpha }.\hfill \end{array}$$

Corollary 4.3 of  gives that $`\overline{Q_\alpha }`$ is isomorphic to $`W_\alpha `$ over $`\overline{S_\alpha }`$. ∎

The rest of the paper is devoted to specialisations of Theorem 5.4.

## 6. Semilattices of straight left orders

Let $`S`$ be a semilattice $`Y`$ of subsemigroups $`S_\alpha `$, $`\alpha Y`$, where each $`S_\alpha `$ is a straight left order in $`T_\alpha `$ inducing $`(_{\mathrm{}}^\alpha ,_r^\alpha )`$ with associated equivalence relations $`_\alpha ^{}`$ and $`_\alpha ^{}`$. As remarked in Section 3, $`S`$ is certainly a partial order $`Y`$ of the subsets $`S_\alpha ,\alpha Y`$. We define the relations $`_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`_r`$ as in Definition 5.1. Let $`\alpha P`$. If $`I_\alpha ^S=\mathrm{}`$, then we let $`W_\alpha =T_\alpha `$. If $`I_\alpha ^S\mathrm{}`$ put $`W_\alpha =T_\alpha ^0`$. In view of Lemma 2.2, in either case $`\overline{S_\alpha }`$ is a straight left order in $`W_\alpha `$. It is easy to see that the pair $`(_{\mathrm{}},_r)`$ arising from the left quotient semigroups $`T_\alpha `$ coincides with the pair of relations arising from the left quotient semigroups $`W_\alpha `$. We can thus apply Theorem 5.4 to obtain the first part of the following result.

###### Theorem 6.1.

The following conditions on the semigroup $`S`$ are equivalent:

(A) $`(_{\mathrm{}},_r)`$ is a $``$-pair such that for all $`a𝒮(S),b,cS`$,

$$a^2b^{}a^2c\text{ implies that }ab^{}ac$$

and $`𝒮(S)=𝒢(S)`$;

(B) $`S`$ is a straight left order in $`Q`$ inducing $`(_{\mathrm{}},_r)`$.

If any of these conditions hold, then $`Q`$ is a semilattice $`Y`$ of subsemigroups $`Q_\alpha ,\alpha Y`$, such that each $`S_\alpha `$ is a straight left order in $`Q_\alpha `$ and $`Q_\alpha `$ is isomorphic to $`T_\alpha `$ over $`S_\alpha `$.

###### Proof.

By Theorem 5.4, (A) and (B) are equivalent. If (A) or (B) hold, then again by Theorem 5.4, $`Q`$ is a partial order $`Y`$ of subsets $`Q_\alpha `$, $`\alpha Y`$, such that each $`\overline{S_\alpha }`$ is a straight left order in $`\overline{Q_\alpha }`$ and $`\overline{Q_\alpha }`$ is isomorphic to $`W_\alpha `$ over $`\overline{S_\alpha }`$.

Let $`\alpha P`$. If $`I_\alpha ^S=\mathrm{}`$, then as in Section 4, $`I_\alpha ^Q=\mathrm{}`$. In this case, $`\overline{S_\alpha }=S_\alpha `$, $`\overline{Q_\alpha }=Q_\alpha `$ is a subsemigroup of $`Q`$, and $`W_\alpha =T_\alpha `$. Hence $`S_\alpha `$ is a straight left order in $`Q_\alpha `$ and $`Q_\alpha `$ is isomorphic to $`T_\alpha `$ over $`S\alpha `$.

Otherwise, $`\overline{S_\alpha }=S_\alpha ^0`$. By Lemma 2.1, the zero of $`\overline{S_\alpha }`$ is the zero of $`\overline{Q_\alpha }`$, and as $`\overline{S_\alpha }`$ has no zero divisors, neither does $`\overline{Q_\alpha }`$. Thus $`Q_\alpha `$ is a subsemigroup of $`Q`$ and by Lemma 2.2, $`S_\alpha `$ is a straight left order in $`Q_\alpha `$. Now $`\overline{Q_\alpha }`$ is isomorphic to $`T_\alpha ^0`$ over $`S_\alpha ^0`$; clearly then $`Q_\alpha `$ is isomorphic to $`T_\alpha `$ over $`S_\alpha `$.

Finally, let $`pQ_\alpha `$ and $`QQ_\beta `$. Then $`pa`$ and $`qb`$ for some $`aS_\alpha `$ and $`bS_\beta `$, whence

$$pqpbab$$

so that as each $`Q_\gamma `$ is a union of $`𝒟`$-classes, we have $`pqQ_{\alpha \beta }`$. Thus $`Q`$ is a semilattice $`Y`$ of subsemigroups $`Q_\alpha ,\alpha Y`$. ∎

Theorem 6.1 has a number of applications. Theorem 5.5 of  (see also ) is the specialisation of Theorem 6.1 to the case where each $`S_\alpha `$ is a straight left order in a completely simple semigroup $`T_\alpha `$. Surprisingly, the conditions in (A) are only slightly stronger than those in Theorem 5.5 of . In the latter result one can use the decomposition of each $`S_\alpha `$ as a matrix of right reversible cancellative subsemigroups to deduce that $`(_{\mathrm{}},_r)`$ is a $``$-pair from the assumptions that $`_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`_r`$ are transistive, $`^{}`$ is a left congruence, $`^{}^{}`$ and $`^{}^{}`$ . Moreover for any $`aS`$, $`a^{}a^2`$ so that as $`^{}^{}`$, $`a^{}a^2`$. thus $`𝒮(S)=𝒢(S)`$ holds automatically. Of course one can specialise further to the case where each $`T_\alpha `$ is a group, to obtain the early result of  mentioned in the Introdution.

Specialisations of Theorem 6.1 to the case where $`S`$ is cancellative or commutative can be found in  and .

## 7. The fully stratified case

Recall that a straight left order $`S`$ in $`Q`$ is fully stratified in $`Q`$ if $`Q`$ induces $`(_{^{}},_{^{}})`$. Clearly we may specialise Theorem 5.4 to fully stratified straight left orders. The cleanest result is available when $`S`$ is IC abundant.

###### Theorem 7.1.

Let $`S`$ be an idempotent connected abundant semigroup.

If $`S`$ is a fully stratified straight left order in $`Q`$, where $`Q`$ is a partial order $`P`$ of subsets $`Q_\alpha ,\alpha P`$, then for any $`\alpha P`$, $`\overline{S_\alpha }`$ is an abundant fully stratified straight left order in $`\overline{Q_\alpha }`$.

Conversely, suppose that $`S`$ is a partial order $`P`$ of subsets $`S_\alpha \alpha P`$, such that each $`\overline{S_\alpha }`$ is an abundant fully stratified straight left order. Then $`S`$ is a fully stratified straight left order if and only if for all $`a𝒮(S)`$ and $`b,cS`$,

$$a^2b^{}a^2c\text{ implies that }ab^{}ac.$$

###### Proof.

Suppose that $`S`$ is a fully stratified straight left order in $`Q`$, where $`Q`$ is a partial order $`P`$ of subsets $`Q_\alpha ,\alpha P`$. As in Section 4, $`S`$ is a partial order $`P`$ of subsets $`S_\alpha =SQ_\alpha `$, and each $`S_\alpha `$ is a union of $`^{}`$-classes and of $`^{}`$-classes. Thus for any $`\alpha P`$, $`J_\alpha ^S`$ and $`I_\alpha ^S`$ are $``$-ideals. From Proposition 4.3, each $`\overline{S_\alpha }`$ is a straight left order in $`\overline{Q_\alpha }`$. It remains to show that $`\overline{S_\alpha }`$ is abundant and fully stratified in $`\overline{Q_\alpha }`$.

Let $`a,b\overline{S_\alpha }`$ and suppose that $`a_{^{}}b`$ in $`\overline{S_\alpha }`$. Either $`a=0`$, in which case certainly $`a_{}b`$ in $`\overline{Q_\alpha }`$. Otherwise, $`a,bS_\alpha `$ and by Lemma 2.5 of , $`a_{^{}}b`$ in $`S`$. But $`S`$ is fully stratified in $`Q`$, so that $`a_{}b`$ in $`Q`$ and hence $`a_{}b`$ in $`\overline{Q_\alpha }`$. Together with the dual argument for $`_{^{}}`$, we have that $`\overline{Q_\alpha }`$ induces $`(_{^{}},_{^{}})`$ on $`\overline{S_\alpha }`$.

Again from Lemma 2.5 of , the non-zero $`^{}`$-classes and $`^{}`$-classes of $`\overline{S_\alpha }`$ are $`^{}`$-classes and $`^{}`$-classes of $`S`$ and thus contain idempotents since $`S`$ is abundant. Thus $`\overline{S_\alpha }`$ is abundant.

Conversely, suppose that $`S`$ is a partial order $`P`$ of subsets $`S_\alpha ,\alpha P`$, such that each $`\overline{S_\alpha }`$ is an abundant fully stratified straight left order in a semigroup $`W_\alpha `$. Let $`aS_\alpha ,bS_\beta `$ and suppose that $`a^{}b`$ in $`S`$. Since $`\overline{S_\alpha }`$ and $`\overline{S_\beta }`$ are abundant, there are idempotents $`e\overline{S_\alpha }`$ and $`f\overline{S_\beta }`$ with $`a^{}e`$ in $`\overline{S_\alpha }`$ and $`b^{}f`$ in $`\overline{S_\beta }`$. Hence $`ea=a`$ and $`fb=b`$. It follows that $`eS_\alpha `$ and $`fS_\beta `$. Moreover from $`ea=a`$ and $`a^{}b`$ in $`S`$ we have $`eb=b`$, so that $`\beta \alpha `$; dually, $`\alpha \beta `$. Hence each $`S_\alpha `$ is a union of $`^{}`$-classes, and dually, of $`^{}`$-classes. Consequently, for any $`\alpha P`$, $`I_\alpha ^S`$ and $`J_\alpha ^S`$ are $``$-ideals.

Let $`_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`_r`$ be as in Definition 5.1.

Let $`a,bS`$ and suppose that $`a_{\mathrm{}}b`$. Then for some $`\alpha P`$ and $`cS`$, $`a,cbS_\alpha `$ and $`a_\alpha ^{}cb`$. As $`\overline{S_\alpha }`$ is fully stratified we have that $`a^{}cb`$ in $`\overline{S_\alpha }`$ so that by Lemma 2.5 of , $`a^{}cb`$ in $`S`$, so that $`a_{^{}}b`$ in $`S`$.

Conversely, if $`a_{^{}}b`$ in $`S`$, then by Lemma 2.3, $`a^{}xb`$ for some $`xS`$. Since each $`S_\alpha `$ is a union of $`^{}`$-classes, we have $`a,xbS_\alpha `$ for some $`\alpha P`$ and by Lemma 2.5 of , $`a^{}xb`$ in $`\overline{S_\alpha }`$. Thus $`a_\alpha ^{}xb`$ so that $`a_{\mathrm{}}b`$. Hence $`_{\mathrm{}}=_{^{}}`$ and dually, $`_r=_{^{}}`$. Clearly $`(_{\mathrm{}},_r)`$ is a $``$-pair and $`𝒮(S)=𝒢(S)`$. We can now apply Theorem 5.4 to deduce that $`S`$ is a straight left order in a semigroup $`Q`$ inducing $`(_{^{}},_{^{}})`$, that is, $`S`$ is a fully stratified straight left order, if and only if for all $`a𝒮(S)`$ and $`b,cS`$,

$$a^2b^{}a^2c\text{ implies that }ab^{}ac.$$

We now present an appication of this theorem. Theorem 5.12 of  states that the semigroup $`\mathrm{End}_fA`$ of endomorphisms of finite rank of a stable basis algebra is a fully stratified straight left order. The proof proceeds by verifying all the conditions necessary for $`(_{^{}},_{^{}})`$ to be an embeddable $``$-pair, together with condition (Gii). Theorem 7.1 gives an alternative approach. For further details of basis algebras, we refer the reader to .

It is clear that

$$\mathrm{End}_fA=\{U_n:0n\mathrm{rank}A,n\}$$

where

$$U_n=\{\alpha \mathrm{End}A:\mathrm{rank}A=n\}.$$

For any $`\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{End}A`$, Lemma 5.1 of  gives that

$$\mathrm{rank}\alpha \beta \text{ min }\{\mathrm{rank}\alpha ,\mathrm{rank}\beta \}$$

so that in our terminology, $`\mathrm{End}_fA`$ is a partial order (indeed, a chain) $`N`$ of subsets $`U_n,nN`$, where $`N`$ is the set of finite ranks of endomorphisms of $`A`$. Our Rees quotients $`\overline{U_n}`$ are, in the terminology of , the semigroups $`S_n/S_{n1}`$. The latter are shown in the final section of  to be primitive abundant semigroups in which all the non-zero idempotents are $`𝒟`$-related. Moreover the non-null $`^{}`$-classes are right reversible. It follows from  that $`S_n/S_{n1}`$ is isomorphic to a Rees matrix semigroup $`^0(H;I,\mathrm{\Lambda };P)`$, where $`H`$ is a right reversible cancellative semigroup and $`I`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ index the $`^{}`$-classes and $`^{}`$-classes of $`S`$, respectively. It is easy to see that $`^0(H;I,\mathrm{\Lambda };P)`$ is a fully stratified straight left order in $`^0(G;I,\mathrm{\Lambda };P)`$, where $`G`$ is the group of left quotients of $`H`$.

From Theorem 3.9 and Corollary 5.2 of , $`\mathrm{End}_fA`$ is an IC abundant semigroup. We thus have exactly the right circumstances to apply Theorem 7.1. Lemma 5.11 of  gives that for all $`a𝒮(S)`$ and $`b,cS`$,

$$a^2b^{}a^2c\text{ implies that }ab^{}ac.$$

Consequently, $`\mathrm{End}_fA`$ is a fully stratified straight left order.

## 8. Straight left orders in completely semisimple semigroups

We recall from  that a semigroup is completely semisimple if all its principal factors are completely (0)-simple. We end the paper with a new characterisation of straight left orders in completely semisimple semigroups.

Let $`S`$ be a semigroup possessing a $``$-pair $`(_{\mathrm{}},_r)`$. We say that $`S`$ has $`M_L^{}`$ ($`M_R^{}`$) if the $`^{}`$-class ($`^{}`$-classes) within any $`𝒟`$-class satisfy the descending chain condition.

###### Theorem 8.1.

The following are equivalent for a semigroup $`S`$:

(i) $`S`$ is a straight left order in a completely semisimple semigroup $`Q`$ inducing $`(_{\mathrm{}},_r)`$;

(ii) $`S`$ is a straight left order in a semigroup $`Q`$ inducing $`(_{\mathrm{}},_r)`$ such that $`𝒥^{}=𝒟^{}`$ and $`M_L^{}`$ and $`M_R^{}`$ hold;

(iii) $`S`$ is a partial order $`P`$ of subsets $`S_\alpha ,\alpha P`$, each $`\overline{S_\alpha }`$ is a (straight) left order in a completely 0-simple (or completely simple) semigroup such that $`(_{\mathrm{}},_r)`$ is a $``$-pair, for all $`a,b,cS`$ with $`a𝒮(S)`$,

$$a^2b^{}a^2c\text{ implies that }ab^{}ac$$

and $`𝒮(S)=𝒢(S)`$.

###### Proof.

(i) implies (ii) In $`Q`$ we have that $`𝒥=𝒟`$ and so by Lemma 2.4, $`𝒥^{}=𝒟^{}`$ on $`S`$. Suppose that $`a_1,a_2,\mathrm{}`$ are $`𝒟^{}`$-related elements of $`S`$ such that

$$a_1_{\mathrm{}}a_2_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}$$

Then in $`Q`$ $`a_1,a_2,\mathrm{}`$ are $`𝒟`$-related and we have

$$a_1_{}a_2_{}\mathrm{}$$

so that the same is true in the principal factors. But these are completely (0)-simple, and so

$$a_1a_2\mathrm{}$$

in $`\overline{Q_\alpha }`$ and hence in $`Q`$. This gives

$$a_1^{}a_2^{}\mathrm{}.$$

Certainly then $`M_L^{}`$ holds. Dually condition $`M_R^{}`$ holds.

(ii) implies (i) We have $`𝒥=𝒟`$ on $`Q`$ since $`𝒥^{}=𝒟^{}`$ on $`S`$. Consider a principal factor $`W`$ of $`Q`$. Let $`q_1,q_2,\mathrm{}`$ be non-zero elements of $`W`$ such that

$$q_1_{}q_2_{}\mathrm{}$$

in $`W`$. For each $`i`$ choose $`a_iS`$ such that $`a_iq_i`$ in $`Q`$ and hence in $`W`$. Now in $`W`$ and $`Q`$

$$a_1_{}a_2_{}\mathrm{}$$

so that

$$a_1_{\mathrm{}}a_2_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}$$

But the $`q_i`$’s are all $`𝒥`$-related in $`Q`$, so that the $`a_i`$’s are all $`𝒟^{}`$-related in $`S`$. Since $`S`$ has $`M_L^{}`$, we have that for some $`n`$,

$$a_n^{}a_{n+1}^{}\mathrm{}$$

whence

$$q_nq_{n+1}\mathrm{}$$

in $`Q`$ and $`W`$. Hence $`W`$ has the descending chain condition on principal left ideals, and dually for principal right ideals. By Theorem 3.3.2 of , $`W`$ is completely (0)-simple.

(i) implies (iii) We have that $`Q`$ is a partial order $`P`$ of subsets $`Q_\alpha ,\alpha P`$, where $`P`$ is the $`_𝒥`$-order on $`Q`$, and $`S`$ is thus a partial order $`P`$ of subsets $`S_\alpha =SQ_\alpha `$, where $`P`$ is the $`_j`$-order on $`S`$. By Lemma 2.1, each $`\overline{S_\alpha }`$ is a straight weak left order in $`\overline{Q_\alpha }`$. But if $`a\overline{S_\alpha }`$ is square cancellable in $`\overline{S_\alpha }`$, then either $`a=0`$, so lies in a subgroup of $`\overline{Q_\alpha }`$, or as $`a^{}a^2`$ in $`\overline{S_\alpha }`$, $`a^20`$. In the latter case it is well known that $`a`$ lies in a subgroup of $`\overline{Q_\alpha }`$. Thus $`\overline{S_\alpha }`$ is a straight left order in a completely (0)-simple semigroup.

It is easy to verify that $`(_{\mathrm{}},_r)`$ coincides with the pair of preorders constructed as in Section 5 from the straight left orders $`\overline{S_\alpha }`$. Clearly then (iii) holds.

(iii) implies (i) This is immediate from Theorem 5.4. ∎