text:
# Effect of cold collisions on spin coherence and resonance shifts in a magnetically trapped ultra-cold gas

## Abstract

We have performed precision microwave spectroscopy on ultra-cold 87Rb confined in a magnetic trap, both above and below the Bose-condensation transition. The cold collision frequency shifts for both normal and condensed clouds were measured, which allowed the intra- and inter-state density correlations (characterized by sometimes controversial “factors of 2”) to be determined. Additionally, temporal coherence of the normal cloud was studied, and the importance of mean-field and velocity-changing collisions in preserving coherence is discussed.

With the advent of modern cooling and trapping techniques, the cold collision regime has become readily accessible. In the cold collision regime quantum statistical effects due to particle indistinguishability dominate scattering processes. The symmetrization requirement for identical particles in an ultra-cold Bose gas enhances the probability of finding two particles nearby, causing density fluctuations. At lower temperatures the statistical nature of the Bose gas causes the phenomena of Bose-Einstein condensation, where all atoms in the condensate share the same wavefunction, suppressing the density fluctuations found in a noncondensed sample.

Suppression of second-order density fluctuations in a condensate has been measured through analysis of the expansion energy of condensates holland1997 ; ketterle1997 . In a separate experiment, the suppression of third-order density fluctuations was probed by comparing the three-body loss rate of a condensate to that of a normal cloud jila1997 . The effect of cold collisions has also been measured as a density-dependent energy shift in atomic fountain clocks Gibble1993 ; Fertig2000 ; Sortais2000 . These shifts are quite small ($``$0.1-10 mHz) due to the low densities at which the clocks operate, but are measurable because of their high precision. The uncertainty associated with these collisional shifts can be problematic; in fact the next generation of atomic fountain clocks are based on 87Rb rather than 133Cs because the collisional shift of 87Rb is $`30`$ times smaller. In recent ultra-cold hydrogen experiments the cold collision shift provided the signature of Bose-condensation; below the transition a large frequency shift of the 1S-2S transition was seen, reflecting the high density of the condensate Hcoldc .

In this paper we report precision microwave spectroscopy performed on ultra-cold and condensed 87Rb atoms confined in a magnetic trap. Due to the high densities achievable in a magnetic trap, the collisional energy shifts were $`10^5`$ greater than those in 87Rb atomic clocks, allowing a high-precision measurement of the shifts of the magnetically trappable states to be made with relative ease. The collisional shifts for both a normal and condensed sample were measured, providing a useful probe of the quantum statistics of the system. Additionally, magnetic confinement permits long interrogation times, allowing us to characterize temporal coherence of the normal cloud under various experimental conditions. Comparison of measured coherence times with a collisionless numerical simulation suggests that collisions preserve coherence in normal clouds.

Precision spectroscopy of trapped samples is difficult because atom trapping relies on spatial inhomogeneity of the atomic energy levels. Spatial inhomogeneity of the energy levels broadens the transition frequency, thus limiting the precision attainable through spectroscopy. In other work, this difficulty has been avoided by confining atoms in a blue-detuned optical dipole trap, where atoms spend little time interacting with the trapping fields chu1995 . In this work spatial inhomogeneity of the transition frequency was minimized through the use of a pair of energy levels which experience the same trapping potential. At a magnetic field of $`3.23`$ G, the $`|1|F=1,m_f=1`$ and $`|2|F=2,m_f=1`$ hyperfine levels of the $`5\text{S}_{1/2}`$ ground state of 87Rb experience the same first-order Zeeman shift. For a normal cloud at 500 nK, each energy level is Zeeman shifted by $``$10 kHz across the extent of the cloud; however, at 3.23 G the differential shift of the two levels across the cloud is $``$1 Hz. Compared to the differential Zeeman shift, the energy shift due to cold collisions is then a relatively large effect at high densities, making measurements of collisional shifts in this system possible. The small inhomogeneity allows for long coherence times, $``$2 seconds and longer for low-density clouds, making this system attractive for precision measurements as well as for the study of condensate coherence in the presence of a thermal cloud.

The experimental setup has been previously described lewan2002  and will be briefly summarized here. Approximately $`10^9`$ 87Rb atoms are loaded into a vapor cell magneto-optical trap (MOT). The atoms are then optically pumped into the $`|F=1`$ state by turning off the repump beam while MOT beams remain on. Then the trapping beams are turned off and the MOT coils are ramped to a high current forming a 250 G/cm gradient to trap $`|1,1`$ atoms in the quadrupole field of the coils. The quadrupole coils are mounted on a linear servo-motor controlled track which then moves the coils 44 cm, from the MOT region to a Ioffe-Pritchard trap in the ultra-high vacuum region of the system. The Ioffe-Pritchard trap consists of two permanent magnets which provide a 450 G/cm radial gradient. Two pairs of electromagnetic coils, a pinch and a bias, provide confinement in the axial direction, which is aligned perpendicular with respect to gravity. At a typical bias field of 3.23 G, atoms in the $`|1,1`$ state experience $`\{230,230,7\}`$ Hz trap frequencies. The sample is further cooled by rf evaporation, and condensates of up to $`10^6`$ atoms can be formed. Imaging is performed by the use of adiabatic rapid passage to transfer atoms from the $`|1,1`$ state to the $`|2,2`$ state. Anti-trapped $`|2,2`$ atoms rapidly expand for 2-5 ms and then are imaged through absorption by a 20 $`\mu \text{s}`$ pulse of $`5\text{S}_{1/2}`$ $`|2,25\text{P}_{3/2}`$ $`|3,3`$ light.

A two-photon microwave-rf transition is used to transfer atoms between the $`|1`$ and $`|2`$ states. A detuning of 0.7 MHz from the $`|2,0`$ intermediate state provides a two-photon Rabi frequency of $`2.5`$ kHz. Ramsey spectroscopy of the $`|1|2`$ transition is performed by measuring the total number of atoms remaining in state $`|1`$ after a pair of $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$ pulses separated by a variable time delay are applied ramsey1956 . The frequency of the resulting Ramsey fringes is the difference between the transition frequency $`\nu _{12}`$ and the two-photon drive frequency. In previous work we measured local variations of $`\nu _{12}`$ by detecting the number of atoms remaining in state $`|1`$ at specific spatial locations along the axis of the normal cloud lewan2002 . By analyzing the spatio-temporal variations of $`\nu _{12}`$, combined with the measured evolution of the $`|1`$ state after a single $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$ pulse, we were able to spatially resolve the evolution of spin waves mcguirk2002 . In this work, in order to perform measurements of $`\nu _{12}`$ insensitive to spin waves, one of the following two techniques was used. With one technique the entire cloud, rather than specific spatial locations, was monitored to average out the effects of spin waves. Alternatively, Ramsey spectroscopy was restricted to interrogation times short compared to the spin wave frequency fspinwave .

One effect which shifts the transition frequency $`\nu _{12}`$ is the differential Zeeman shift. The Breit-Rabi formula predicts a minimum in $`\nu _{12}`$ at $`B_0=3.228917(3)`$ Gauss, thus the differential Zeeman shift between the $`|1`$ and $`|2`$ energy levels is first-order magnetic field independent at $`B=B_0`$. The differential Zeeman shift about $`B_0`$ can be approximated as $`\nu _{12}=\nu _{min}+\beta (BB_0)^2`$ brettrabi . Measuring $`\nu _{12}`$ for different magnetic fields allows us to calibrate our magnetic field from the expected dependence, see Fig. 1. By working in the vicinity of $`B=B_0`$ we greatly reduce spatial inhomogeneity of $`\nu _{12}`$ and also become first-order insensitive to temporal magnetic field fluctuations.

A second effect which shifts $`\nu _{12}`$ arises from atom-atom interactions. In the s-wave regime, where the thermal de Broglie wavelength of the atoms is greater than their scattering length, atoms experience an energy shift equal to $`\alpha \frac{4\pi \mathrm{}^2}{m}an`$, where $`\alpha `$ is the two-particle correlation at zero separation, $`n`$ is atom number density, $`a`$ is the scattering length, and $`m`$ is the atom mass. Therefore for a two-component sample the expected energy shift of each state is

$`\delta \mu _1={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \mathrm{}^2}{m}}(\alpha _{11}a_{11}n_1+\alpha _{12}a_{12}n_2)`$ (1)
$`\delta \mu _2={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \mathrm{}^2}{m}}(\alpha _{12}a_{12}n_1+\alpha _{22}a_{22}n_2),`$ (2)
where $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$ are the $`|1`$ and $`|2`$ state density and

$$\alpha _{ij}=\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_i\mathrm{\Psi }_j}{\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_i\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_j}\text{.}$$
(3)
The shift of the transition frequency in Hz can then be written as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _{12}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{}}{m}}(\alpha _{12}a_{12}n_1+\alpha _{22}a_{22}n_2\alpha _{11}a_{11}n_1\alpha _{12}a_{12}n_2)`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{m}}n(\alpha _{22}a_{22}\alpha _{11}a_{11}+`$
$`(2\alpha _{12}a_{12}\alpha _{11}a_{11}\alpha _{22}a_{22})f),`$
where $`f=\frac{n_1n_2}{n}`$ and $`n=n_1+n_2`$.

For noncondensed, indistinguishable bosons, $`\alpha =2`$ due to exchange symmetry, therefore $`\alpha _{11}^{nc}=\alpha _{22}^{nc}=2`$ in a cold normal cloud (where the superscript $`c`$ or $`nc`$ refers to condensed of noncondensed atoms respectively). Distinguishable particles do not maintain exchange symmetry, making $`\alpha _{12}^{nc}=1`$ for an incoherent two-component mixture. However if a two-component sample is prepared by coherently transferring atoms from a single component, such as in Ramsey spectroscopy, then the excitation process maintains exchange symmetry, and we might expect $`\alpha _{12}^{nc}=2`$ Kleppner2002 . In this scenario the collisional shift should be calculated using $`\alpha _{11}^{nc}=\alpha _{22}^{nc}=\alpha _{12}^{nc}=2`$, leading to a predicted frequency shift of

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _{12}=\frac{2\mathrm{}}{m}n(a_{22}a_{11}+(2a_{12}a_{11}a_{22})f).$$
(5)
This result can also be obtained by solving the transport equation levitov2002 ; williams2002 . From spectroscopic studies verhaar2002  the three 87Rb scattering lengths of interest have been determined to be $`a_{22}=95.47a_0`$, $`a_{12}=98.09a_0`$, and $`a_{11}=100.44a_0`$, where $`a_0`$ is the Bohr radius. The frequency shift can then be written as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _{12}=\frac{2\mathrm{}}{m}a_0n(4.97+0.27f).$$
(6)
If on the other hand the $`|1`$ and $`|2`$ states do not maintain exchange symmetry, such that $`\alpha _{12}^{nc}=1`$, then the frequency shift would instead be

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _{12}=\frac{2\mathrm{}}{m}a_0n(4.9797.82f).$$
(7)
These two models are clearly distinguished by the dependence of $`\nu _{12}`$ on $`f`$.

When we perform Ramsey spectroscopy with a pair of $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$ pulses, the populations of the $`|1`$ and $`|2`$ states are equal, and thus $`f=0`$ during the interrogation time. From Eq. (4) it is apparent that with $`f=0`$ the collisional shift is sensitive only to $`\alpha _{ii}^{nc}`$ and $`a_{ii}`$ terms. For these measurements the bias field was set to $`B_0`$, and the transition frequency was measured for a range of densities. To adjust density of the sample, the number of atoms in the initial MOT load was varied. All normal cloud data was taken at the same temperature of 480 nK, and all condensate data was taken with high condensate fractions in order to minimize effects due to the normal cloud. The density for the normal cloud was found by fitting Gaussian profiles to absorption images of the clouds and extracting the number, temperature, and density. To measure condensate density, Thomas-Fermi profiles were fit to absorption images of the condensates and the total number, $`N_0`$, in the condensates and the Thomas-Fermi radius along the long axis, $`Z`$, were extracted.

The results of this measurement are shown in Fig. 2. Comparing the collisional shift measured for the normal cloud to that measured for a condensate gives $`\alpha _{ii}^{nc}/\alpha _{ii}^c=2.1(2)`$. If instead we assume $`\alpha _{ii}^{nc}=2`$ and $`\alpha _{ii}^c=1`$, then the data for both the condensate and normal cloud can be used to obtain a value for the difference in scattering lengths of $`a_{22}a_{11}=4.92(28)a_0`$, in agreement with values determined from molecular spectroscopy verhaar2002 .

Many systematics can plague density measurements made through absorption imaging. In order to test independently our density calibration for both the normal and condensed samples, each of which can suffer from different errors, we used the Bose-condensation phenomenon. The density of normal clouds was tested through measurement of the critical temperature, and condensate density was tested with the Thomas-Fermi approximation. Assuming that disagreements are due only to errors in estimation of atom number, the worst case scenario, leads us to reduce normal cloud density by $`11(4)\%`$ and increase condensate density by $`11(3)\%`$. Adjusting the cold collision shifts accordingly would yield a worst-case corrected value of $`\alpha _{ii}^{nc}/\alpha _{ii}^c=1.7(2)`$ calibration . The adjusted normal and condensate density shifts can be combined as above to give a value for the difference in scattering lengths of $`a_{22}a_{11}=4.85(31)a_0`$; not significantly different from our unadjusted measurement.

The remaining significant systematic is atom loss due to $`|2`$-$`|2`$ collisional dipolar relaxation. In order to minimize effects of this loss, interrogation times were kept as short as possible. Nevertheless for the highest density condensate measurements the $`|2`$-$`|2`$ loss causes the total density to drop by 3% in 20 ms, the maximum interrogation time. For all other densities the loss was no larger than this, and in most cases much smaller. Finally, the $`|1`$ and $`|2`$ states begin undergoing spatial separation in the condensate after the first $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$ pulse hall1998 ; however, the timescale for the separation is much longer than our 20 ms interrogation time.

Exchange symmetry between the $`|1`$ and $`|2`$ states can be tested by working at a fixed density and varying the relative $`|1`$ to $`|2`$ population by varying the length of the first Ramsey pulse ExchangePulse . In this case the first term in Eq. (4) will be constant and the measurement will test $`\alpha _{12}^{nc}`$ and $`a_{12}`$ as well as the $`\alpha _{ii}^{nc}`$ and $`a_{ii}`$ terms (see Eq. (6) and (7)). To minimize systematics the interrogation times were kept short, making precise frequency determination difficult. Nevertheless, our measurement (Fig. 3) indicates $`\alpha _{12}^{nc}/\alpha _{11,22}^{nc}=1.01(2)`$, where we have used the spectroscopically determined scattering lengths. This clearly indicates that exchange symmetry is maintained between the $`|1`$ and $`|2`$ states. A similar measurement was made on the $`|F=1,m_f=0|F=2,m_f=0`$ transition by Fertig and Gibble Fertig2000 .

As a thought experiment, imagine distinct thermal populations of $`|1`$ and $`|2`$ atoms, separately prepared, then mixed together, with the energy of interaction (proportional to $`\alpha _{12}^{nc}`$) measured for instance calorimetrically. Surely in this case the density fluctuations in state $`|1`$ and in state $`|2`$ would be uncorrelated, and $`\alpha _{12}^{nc}`$ would be determined to be 1, not 2. We lack the experimental sensitivity to make such a calorimetric measurement, and our Ramsey-fringe method of measuring energy differences obviously would not work for incoherent mixtures. We speculated, however, that if $`\alpha _{12}^{nc}=2`$ for coherent superpositions, and if $`\alpha _{12}^{nc}=1`$ for incoherent mixtures, then for partially decohered samples, $`\alpha _{12}^{nc}`$ would take on some intermediate value. So by performing a measurement similar to that in Fig. 3 we might expect to see a more negative slope for a partially decohered sample; alternatively a frequency chirp in the Ramsey fringes may be seen as the sample decoheres.

We probed the time evolution of $`\alpha _{12}^{nc}`$ in a way similar to Fig. 3; however rather than varying $`f`$ we set $`f0.8`$ then measured $`\nu _{12}`$ with long interrogation times, looking for a frequency chirp as the fringe contrast decreased. This method has the advantage that there is a relatively small $`|2`$ state population, so effects arising from $`|2`$ loss are minimized. Seven data sets were taken for this measurement; an example is shown in Fig. 4. By allowing a linear frequency chirp in the fit of the Ramsey fringes, the frequency shift can be constrained to $`0.2(3)`$ Hz by the time the fringe contrast has reduced to $`1/e`$ ChirpCorrect . However if we hypothesize that $`\alpha _{12}^{nc}`$ goes from $`2`$ to $`1`$ linearly as fringe contrast goes from $`100\%`$ to $`0\%`$ we would expect a frequency shift of $`20(2)`$ Hz as the fringe decayed, while the experimental limit is 40 times smaller. Clearly this appealing but unrigorous model is far too naive.

Ramsey spectroscopy not only allows us to probe the energy difference between the two states, but also permits the measurement of the coherence between the two states. Coherence measurements were performed using the same time domain method used to measure $`\nu _{12}`$; however, interrogation times were extended until the Ramsey fringe contrast was lost. The resulting data was fit to a $`e^{(t/\tau )^2}`$ decay, where $`\tau `$ is the coherence time. Additionally, fitting allowed for both a loss in total atom number and a linear frequency chirp of $`\nu _{12}`$. To ensure that the $`1/e`$ atom loss times were much longer than the coherence times fractional transfers ($`f0.8`$) to the $`|2`$ state were used for the high density data points. The results of coherence measurements for different magnetic fields and at three different densities are shown in Fig. 5.

We expect that the primary source of decoherence is inhomogeneity in $`\nu _{12}`$ across the cloud, to which both the differential Zeeman and collisional shifts contribute. The collisional shift scales directly with density, and thus provides a Gaussian-shaped $`\nu _{12}`$ profile across the cloud lewan2002 . Inhomogeneity arising from the differential Zeeman effect depends on the bias field. The magnitude of the magnetic field near the bottom of the trap can be written as $`B(z)=\frac{B^{\prime \prime }}{2}z^2+B_{bias}`$, thus the inhomogeneity due to the Zeeman shift is $`\nu _{12}\frac{B^{\prime \prime 2}}{4}z^4+(B_{bias}B_0)B^{\prime \prime }z^2`$. By setting $`B_{bias}(>,<,=)B_0`$ the curvature of $`\nu _{12}`$ can be adjusted to be positive, negative, or nearly zero, respectively. This allows inhomogeneity due to the collisional shift to be roughly cancelled by an opposing Zeeman inhomogeneity lewan2002 . This cancellation can be seen in Fig. 5; as the density is increased from (a) to (c), the inhomogeneity induced by the collisional shift increases, so that a larger opposing Zeeman inhomogeneity is necessary for cancellation. Therefore the bias field for peak coherence time decreases as cloud density increases.

In an attempt to compare the measured decoherence times to the known spatial inhomogeneity of the transition frequency, we performed the following numerical simulation: consistent with a Maxwell-Boltzman distribution, we randomly assign initial positions and velocities to ten thousand simulated atoms. Ignoring the effects of collisions, we calculate the three-dimensional trajectory of each atom for several simulated seconds, keeping track of the time integral of $`\nu _{12}`$ along the trajectory. At each point in time, we calculate the spatially integrated transverse magnetization and, as inhomogeneities cause this magnetization to wash out, find the time it takes the integrated transverse magnetization to reduce to $`1/e`$ of its original value simT2 . This model should correctly account for the effect of motional averaging except that all collisional effects are explicitly excluded. The resulting modelled damping times are plotted as a solid line along with the experimentally measured damping times in Fig. 5. While the model does a reasonable job predicting the value of the bias field for which the coherence time peaks, it consistently underestimates (in some cases by a factor of eight) the actual value of the coherence time. Our model neglects both velocity-changing collisions and the exchange-type collisions that lead to spin waves; it appears that these effects contribute significantly to preserving coherence across the trapped atom cloud.

The extreme aspect ratio of our trapped cloud complicates a proper quantitative analysis of the effects of collisions on coherence. Along the axial direction, our previous work has shown that the effects of spin-waves are to keep local magnetization across the cloud from straying too far from its spatially averaged value \[see in particular Fig. 2(a) of Ref. mcguirk2002 \]. In the radial directions, the motional oscillation frequency exceeds the mean-field exchange frequency in the cloud, and thus the effects of spin-waves are probably not relevant. On the other hand, velocity-changing collisions are likely important – in their absence, atoms with small transverse energies would stay near the axis of the trap, while atoms with large transverse energies would preferentially sample the larger magnetic fields and lower densities further from the axis. Velocity-changing collisions which re-randomize the transverse trajectories of these different classes of atoms (before they have a time to accumulate a radian or more of relative phase-difference) will serve to extend the coherence time of the sample. In the highest density data set presented \[Fig. 5(c)\] the mean elastic collision rate was 74 Hz, which should be compared the measured coherence times of around 0.5 to 1.2 seconds.

It is interesting to consider the usefulness of magnetically trapped atoms for precision metrology. Peak coherence times of approximately 2.5 s were realized with cold, low density samples. An interrogation time of 2.5 s provides a 0.2 Hz linewidth, which naturally leads one to consider using such a system for precision measurements. By working at $`B_{bias}=B_0`$, coherence times are slightly reduced. However, perturbations of $`\nu _{12}`$ due to magnetic field fluctuations become very small, on the order of 4 mHz for current typical experimental conditions. With careful design of the confinement coils, the current supply, and magnetic shielding of external fields, it should be possible to suppress fluctuations of the bias field below 1 mG, reducing Zeeman-induced frequency shifts to below 0.1 mHz. Perturbations of $`\nu _{12}`$ due to the cold collision shift are more significant; shot-to-shot density fluctuations will introduce frequency noise, so it is advantageous to work with the minimum possible density. However as atom number is reduced the maximum signal-to-noise ratio will decrease due to shot-noise Itano1993 , therefore the optimum strategy is to work with an atom number such that the frequency uncertainty due to shot-noise is on the order of the uncertainty due to density fluctuations.

For example a normal cloud of 400 nK and a peak density $`1.5\times 10^{12}`$ cm-3 has $`6\times 10^4`$ atoms. The shot-noise-limited signal-to-noise ratio is then 245:1. With an interrogation time of 1 second the single-shot statistical uncertainty is then 0.65 mHz; including the effects of decoherence and atom loss will increase this to approximately 0.9 mHz. Assuming that shot-to-shot number fluctuations are also shot-noise limited, then statistical uncertainty from the density shift is 0.84 mHz. Combining these gives a total single-shot uncertainty of 1.24 mHz; with our current 30 second evaporation time, the duty-cycle is such that an absolute precision of 6.8 mHz$`/\sqrt{\text{Hz}}`$ can be realized. This corresponds to a relative precision of $`1\times 10^{12}`$ $`/\sqrt{\text{Hz}}`$, which in terms of measurement precision does not reach the level of atomic fountain clocks. This system however has the advantage that small energy shifts can be measured in a compact, stationary spatial position; a 400 nK cloud occupies approximately only a $`1040\times 32\times 32`$ $`\mu `$m region of space. It is certainly feasible to perform spectroscopy at this level within $`100`$ $`\mu `$m of a surface, which might allow the measurement of short range atom-surface interactions.

In future work we plan on measuring coherence times in finite temperature condensates to study the role of the normal cloud in decoherence. We anticipate this system will be quite rich due to the existence of spin waves in the normal component, phase separation in the condensate, and the interaction between the two. The complexity of this interaction may partially account for the anomalous density shift of the condensate seen in the hydrogen experiments Hcoldc ; Kleppner2002 .

We have demonstrated precise spectroscopy in an ultra-cold magnetically trapped gas. This permitted measurement of the cold collision shift in both a condensate and a normal cloud, allowing a probe of the quantum statistics of the system. Working at low densities minimizes the effect of the collisional shift, allowing long coherence times and precise determination of $`\nu _{12}`$; however the measurement of any quantity not related to atom-atom interactions will at some level be limited by this shift. An intriguing alternative would be to instead use a fermionic atom, which should have no collisional shift, and thus density induced frequency noise will not be an issue. On the other hand, the lack of collisions may also lead to more rapid decoherence: collisions appear to preserve our bosonic system from the decohering effects of spatial inhomogeneity.

We acknowledge useful conversations with the other members of the JILA BEC collaboration. This work was supported by grants from the NSF and NIST.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The duality  between IIB string theory on $`AdS_5\times S_5`$ and $`𝒩=4`$ Super Yang–Mills theory realized, for the first time, the idea that the planar limit of a quantum gauge theory is equivalent to a classical string theory. However, string theory on the $`AdS_5\times S_5`$ background remains still largely intractable and even the free spectrum for this case is not known. Thus, most of the checks of the above duality have been done in the supergravity limit ($`\alpha ^{}0`$), where the gauge theory is strongly coupled ($`\lambda =g_{YM}^2N\mathrm{}`$). In  a concrete rule was given for comparing, in the $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$ limit, dynamical quantities on the two sides of the correspondence and, since then, many checks of the AdS/CFT duality have been performed.

In an apparently unrelated development , it has been shown recently that it is possible to extend to supergravity the limiting procedure described by Penrose in the case of pure gravity . The nice feature of this limit is that it deforms a solution of the classical equations of motion into a new universal wave-like solution. The Penrose–limit of the $`AdS_5\times S_5`$ background in type IIB supergravity corresponds to the plane–wave solution ,

$$ds^2=4dx^+dx^{}\mu ^2\underset{I=1}{\overset{8}{}}x_Ix^I(dx^+)^2+\underset{I=1}{\overset{8}{}}dx_Idx^I,F_{+1234}=F_{+5678}=2\mu ,$$
(1)
which was initially obtained in  as a new background preserving all IIB supercharges. Since, as showed in , IIB string theory in the above plane–wave background is solvable in the Green-Schwarz formalism, this limiting procedure turned out to be very interesting for the AdS/CFT duality. This was first pointed out by Berenstein, Maldacena and Nastase  who proposed that, on the Yang–Mills side, this limiting procedure corresponds to focusing on a subset of the full spectrum of composite operators of $`𝒩=4`$ Yang–Mills.

The possibility to work with a tractable string theory showed a glimpse of the full power of the AdS/CFT duality. In fact, the simple computation of the mass spectrum in string theory gave an exact prediction for the conformal dimensions ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$) of the corresponding gauge theory operators; that is the $`\alpha ^{}`$ dependence of the string masses translates into a continuous function of the effective coupling interpolating, in the planar limit, between the weak and the strong–coupling behavior of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. This prediction has been checked on the gauge theory side first at the perturbative level up to 2–loop order , and then at all orders in . The behavior of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ has been been studied also at the torus level , where the situation is more complicated due to a nontrivial mixing of BMN operators. Of course, it would be very nice to extend the string theory analysis and obtain new exact predictions for the $`𝒩=4`$ Yang–Mills theory. However, there are still two largely unsolved issues preventing a straightforward application of the pp–wave/CFT duality beyond the computation of conformal dimensions.

The first problem is that the background (1) gives rise to a free world–sheet theory only in the light cone gauge. Moreover, a non–trivial R–R field can be handled, so far, only in the Green-Schwarz formalism111In  an alternative formalism has been applied to the case of pp–wave background. Even if this looks like a promising step toward a covariant quantization, the presence of a non–trivial background gives rise to a complicate world-sheet action, and explicit computations of string interactions in this framework have not been done so far.. In this approach the description of the string interaction is quite involved already in the flat–space background and a general form for the tree–level $`N`$–string amplitude is not known. However, in the 80’s a detailed analysis of this formalism was carried out  (see also Chap. 11 of  and references therein) so that the first interesting amplitudes could be computed. Recently the IIB $`3`$-string vertex in the background (1) has been studied by the authors of Ref.  extending the flat space analysis of .

A second problem in the pp–wave/CFT duality is represented by the dictionary between string and gauge theory dynamical computations. The rule given in  for comparing Yang–Mills Green functions and supergravity tree–level graphs does not seem to be directly applicable to the gauge theory operators we are interested in, since the corresponding supergravity excitations are confined far away from the AdS conformal boundary. It is not even clear whether it is possible to extract from string theory the complete Yang–Mills Green functions. Actually, contrary to what happens in the supergravity limit, we do not expect that this will be possible in general. A rule for comparing string interactions and Yang-Mills results was proposed in . This was further investigated and generalized in . The correspondence discussed in these papers involved a particular class of BMN operators – the operators with scalar impurities only.

In this note we consider the extension of the pp–wave/CFT duality to BMN operators of a different kind and, correspondingly, to different 3-string interactions. We mainly focus on the string side with the aim of giving an explanation for the puzzle posed by the Yang–Mills computation of , where a BMN operator containing a derivative impurity ($`D_\mu Z`$) has been considered explicitly for the first time. A detailed computation of its conformal dimension is presented both at the planar and at the torus level, generalizing the ideas and the results of  to this new kind of BMN operators. It turns out that the result coincides exactly with the one found for a purely scalar BMN operator. If this result is interpreted via the unitarity argument presented in , one gets information about the $`3`$–string tree–level interaction that should be directly compared with the string cubic vertex of . However, as noticed in various points in the literature , the string interactions seems to be vanishing and would imply a zero torus-level contribution to the anomalous dimension of the operator under study.

This is in conflict with the field theory result. A possible explanation of this mismatch (beyond those suggested in ) is that the unitarity argument of  is incorrect and thus cannot be reliably used to derive the $`3`$–point function from the value of the anomalous dimension. In fact, this possibility has been confirmed in the very recent literature based on field theory calculations.

In this note, we examine the string theory side of the correspondence. Our main point is that the light–cone quantization of string theory on the pp–wave background so far considered does not realize in an explicit way all the symmetries of the background (1). Thus we propose that some modifications have to be made and that they affect the structure of the zero–modes in the interaction Hamiltonian, which is the part responsible for the puzzle described above. We argue that it is also possible that the non–zero mode part of the vertex has to be modified.

The plan of the paper is the following. We start with a discussion of a discrete $`Z_2`$ symmetry of the background (1) and its realization in the string quantization procedure. We show that implementing this $`Z_2`$ symmetry requires a modification in the choice of vacuum and in the zero–mode structure of the interaction Hamiltonian. We then focus on the part of the vertex relevant for computing amplitudes among string states without any fermionic oscillator. On one hand we show that these modifications do not spoil the exact matching between gauge and string theory found so far in the case of scalar BMN operators. On the other hand we are able to reconcile the $`3`$–point string computation with the field theory result of . In fact it turns out that amplitudes among string states with only bosonic excitations display the $`SO(8)`$ symmetry already present in the bosonic part of the background (1).

## 2 The string interaction and its symmetries

In this section we will analyze the symmetries of the interaction Hamiltonian proposed in Ref. . As it is well known, symmetries play a crucial role in determining the string interaction in the Green–Schwarz formalism. Contrary to what happens in the covariant formalism, one does not have at his disposal a world-sheet BRST charge that can be used to define vertex operators. Thus the strategy used in  is to first look for a string interaction realizing locally on the world–sheet all the kinematical symmetries of the light–cone algebra. In the case of flat space, this implies that the string coordinates are continuous at the interaction point and that the conjugate momenta are conserved. By applying the same idea to the pp–wave background, in  it was shown that $`|H_3`$ enjoys exactly the same features as in flat space–time, even if this is not the case for the quadratic part of the Hamiltonian. Then one has to look at the dynamical part of the supersymmetry algebra. It turns out that, in order to have a string interaction respecting the dynamical supersymmetries, one has to add a particular prefactor term. Also in this part, the analysis of  follows closely the flat space–time case . However, the bosonic symmetries of the background (1) are not those of flat–space and this suggests to introduce some different choice in the treatment of the zero–modes, thus yielding a different form of $`|H_3`$.

### 2.1 The $`Z_2`$ symmetry and the choice of vacuum

The point we want to stress is that the presence of a non–trivial R–R field in the plane–wave background breaks the light–cone Lorentz symmetry $`SO(8)`$ down to $`SO(4)\times SO(4)\times Z_2`$. The two $`SO(4)`$ rotate the first and the last four directions among themselves respectively, while the discrete $`Z_2`$ symmetry swaps simultaneously the two groups of four directions

$$Z_2:(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)(x_5,x_6,x_7,x_8).$$
(2)
Of course one is free to define the action of $`Z_2`$ in a different way, for instance by assigning a minus sign to all the components of the r.h.s. of (2). These different choices, however, are perfectly equivalent, since they differ just by a rotation in one of the two $`SO(4)`$ and generate the same $`SO(4)\times SO(4)\times Z_2`$ group. Notice that the $`Z_2`$ transformation above is just a particular rotation in the full $`SO(8)`$ group. Indeed, a generic $`SO(8)`$ rotation by an angle $`\omega _{IJ}`$ is $`\mathrm{exp}\left(i\omega _{IJ}M^{IJ}\right)`$, where $`M_{IJ}`$ are the standard $`SO(8)`$ Lorentz generators. For the vector representation $`M_{IJ}=i(x_I_Jx_J_I)`$ and the transformation (2) is more easily seen as the composition of two rotations: a first one with $`\omega _1=\frac{\pi }{4}(i\sigma _2)1_{4\times 4}`$ and a second one with $`\omega _2=\frac{\pi }{4}(1_{2\times 2}\sigma _3)1_{2\times 2}(i\sigma _2)`$.

From this observation one can easily derive the explicit action of $`Z_2`$ on the spinors. Once a particular realization of the $`SO(8)`$ $`\gamma `$–matrices is chosen, it is sufficient to use the appropriate generators $`M^{IJ}=\frac{i}{4}[\gamma ^I,\gamma ^J]`$ in the above formula to find the rotation matrix. As noticed in various points in the literature, computations get simplified if one works with a specific representation where $`\mathrm{\Pi }=\gamma ^1\gamma ^2\gamma ^3\gamma ^4=1_{2\times 2}\sigma _31_{4\times 4}`$. This can be realized as follows

$`\gamma ^1=(i\sigma _2)(i\sigma _2)(i\sigma _2)(i\sigma _2),`$ $`\gamma ^2=(i\sigma _2)\sigma _1(i\sigma _2)1_{2\times 2},`$
$`\gamma ^3=(i\sigma _2)(i\sigma _2)1_{2\times 2}\sigma _1,`$ $`\gamma ^4=(i\sigma _2)(i\sigma _2)1_{2\times 2}\sigma _3,`$ (3)
$`\gamma ^5=(i\sigma _2)1_{2\times 2}\sigma _1(i\sigma _2),`$ $`\gamma ^6=(i\sigma _2)\sigma _3(i\sigma _2)1_{2\times 2},`$
$`\gamma ^7=\sigma _11_{2\times 2}1_{2\times 2}1_{2\times 2},`$ $`\gamma ^8=(i\sigma _2)1_{2\times 2}\sigma _3(i\sigma _2)`$ $`.`$
From the above $`\gamma `$’s one can, as usual, construct the $`SO(1,9)`$ real and chiral $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$’s: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^0=(i\sigma _2)1_{16\times 16}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu =\sigma _1\gamma ^\mu `$ for $`\mu =1,\mathrm{},9`$, with $`\gamma ^9=_{I=1}^8\gamma ^I`$. However, we will not need the 10D $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$’s since all our spinors are both Majorana-Weyl and satisfy the light–cone constraint $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }^0+\mathrm{\Gamma }^9)\theta =0`$. This constraint means that, with the chosen $`\gamma `$–representation, only the first eight components of a spinor are non-vanishing. With the definitions (2.1), one can easily verify that the $`Z_2`$ reflection (2) simultaneously exchanges some components of the $`8`$–dimensional spinor:

$$\theta ^3\theta ^4,\text{and}\theta ^7\theta ^8.$$
(4)
Notice that the 2D string action in the light–cone gauge  is $`Z_2`$ invariant, even if the combination $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ appears explicitely. In fact $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{}=\gamma ^5\gamma ^6\gamma ^7\gamma ^8=\sigma _3\sigma _31_{4\times 4}`$ have exactly the same action on the first eight components (those relevant for us). The $`Z_2`$ invariance of the string action is reflected at the level of the energy spectrum222See the detailed analysis of  and in particular tables I and II, apart from the typo in $`b_{ij}^{}`$(6), whose $`SO(4)\times SO(4)`$ labels should be $`(1,1)\times (0,0)`$..

It is then natural to require that the $`Z_2`$ symmetry (2) is preserved by the interaction terms of the Hamiltonian. At first sight this seems obvious. In fact the construction in  parallels the one of  and thus one may think to have a 3-string vertex which is invariant under the full $`SO(8)`$. However this is not the case. In the notations of  and , the 3-string vertex reads:

$$|H_3=\left[K_I\stackrel{~}{K}_Jv^{IJ}(\mathrm{\Lambda })E_aE_b^{}E_b^0\right]|0_1|0_2|0_3.$$
(5)
For our purposes, we have separated the contributions of the fermion non-zero modes $`E_b^{}`$ and of the fermion zero modes $`E_b^0`$. We will argue below that (5) does not respect the $`Z_2`$ symmetry of the background and that both $`|0_1|0_2|0_3`$ and $`E_b^0`$ have to be modified.

The point is that the Lorentz structure of the operator inside the square brackets is very similar to the flat–space vertex, the only novelty being the presence of the $`Z_2`$-invariant combination $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$. Thus the expression in the brackets commutes with the $`Z_2`$ generator. However one has still to define the action of (2) on the “vacuum” state $`|0`$ defined by

$$a_n|0=0,n,b_n|0=0,n0,\theta _0|0=0.$$
(6)
In order to have a $`Z_2`$ preserving interaction it is natural to define

$$Z_2|0=|0.$$
(7)
This choice also guarantees that in the limit $`\mu 0`$, one smoothly recovers the flat space theory, where the vacuum is a $`SO(8)`$ scalar. However, the innocent looking choice (7) is quite strange. In fact, as shown in , $`|0`$ preserves the full $`SO(8)`$ symmetry, since it is defined as $`\theta _0^a|0=0`$, but it is not the state of minimal light–cone energy $`|\mathrm{v}`$. Its energy is given by $`4\mu `$. The vacuum state $`|\mathrm{v}`$ with zero energy is defined by

$$a_n|\mathrm{v}=b_n|\mathrm{v}=0n.$$
(8)
The definition of the “zero–mode” oscillators $`b_0^a`$ in terms of the $`\theta _0^a`$ is given in Eq. (19). This implies that $`|\mathrm{v}`$ is related to $`|0`$ as follows (for example, for positive $`p^+`$):

$$|0=\theta _0^5\theta _0^6\theta _0^7\theta _0^8|\mathrm{v}.$$
(9)
The relations (4), (7) and (9) imply that $`|\mathrm{v}`$ is odd under $`Z_2`$, since we found that under this transformation $`\theta ^7`$ and $`\theta ^8`$ are exchanged. We note that the minus sign arising from the action of $`Z_2`$ on the product of $`\theta `$’s above does not depend on the particular realization of the $`\gamma `$-matrices chosen in (2.1). The specific form of the action may change, but the minus sign is always present. This is consistent with the supergravity analysis of  where the polarizations of the string “massless” states are mapped into the various supergravity states. One can check that the lowest energy field $`h`$ is odd under $`Z_2`$. This flip of sign in the field matches with the fact that the product of the four $`\theta `$’s in (9) represents the polarization of the field.

Thus $`|\mathrm{v}`$ and $`|0`$ cannot have the same $`Z_2`$–parity. With the choice (7) $`|0`$ is $`Z_2`$-invariant. However this assignment is puzzling both on the string and the gauge theory side. On the string side, defining $`|0`$ to be a scalar is natural only in flat–space where all the supergravity modes are degenerate in energy and $`|0`$ plays a special role, being $`SO(8)`$ invariant. In the pp–wave background, however, (7) is not natural because the zero–modes are not degenerate in energy; it is the state $`|\mathrm{v}`$ that plays a special role because it represents the real vacuum of the theory (i.e. the state of minimal energy and supersymmetry preserving). The conventional choice in string quantization is to define the vacuum to be invariant under all the symmetries of the background (including the discrete symmetries, present, for instance, in orbifold compactifications). This choice is also supported by the analysis of different, but closely related, setups333 For instance, the pp–waves background supported by a NS–NS flux were reconsidered in  with the goal of studying the holographic properties of these backgrounds. These pp–waves can be analyzed by means of CFT techniques in the RNS quantization, and it turns out that the ground state is always invariant under all discrete symmetries of the background. Moreover, it is interesting to note that the Matrix String Theory analysis of certain pp–wave backgrounds also yields a symmetry–preserving interaction ..

The assignment (7) is also puzzling from the point of view of the string/gauge–theory correspondence. In fact, $`|\mathrm{v}`$ corresponds to the operator $`O_{\mathrm{vac}}^J\mathrm{tr}Z^J`$ which is naturally defined to be $`Z_2`$ invariant, since it does not have any Lorentz index along the directions where the $`Z_2`$ action is non–trivial.

Thus, there are two reasons why one should change the quantum number assignment of $`|\mathrm{v}`$ and declare it to be a $`SO(4)\times SO(4)\times Z_2`$ scalar. The first reason is to construct a string interaction explicitly realizing the $`SO(4)\times SO(4)\times Z_2`$. The second reason is to keep a close relation with the gauge–theory correspondence. In particular,

$$Z_2|\mathrm{v}=|\mathrm{v}Z_2|0=|0.$$
(10)
This change however is not without consequences since it implies that the $`3`$–string interaction (5) does not preserve the $`Z_2`$ invariance of the background (1). Notice that, since $`Z_2^2=1`$, (7) and (10) are the only 2 possible assignments, if one insists that $`|\mathrm{v}`$ is an eigenstate of $`Z_2`$.

In summary, the more desirable choice (10) is possible only if the form of the interacting Hamiltonian (5) is modified too.

### 2.2 The string interaction $`H_3`$

The existing form (5) for $`|H_3`$ and its behavior under $`Z_2`$ are responsible for a few puzzling features noticed in the literature. The authors of  noticed that $`3`$-string amplitudes involving only states dual to scalar BMN operators have a relative minus sign with respect to other amplitudes involving only operators with derivative impurities. Even more puzzling, it seems that string theory predicts a vanishing $`3`$-point interaction when the incoming state is dual to an operator with one scalar and one derivative impurity. These properties of the string amplitudes have been checked by explicit computations , and follow from the vacuum choice (5) and the $`\gamma `$-matrix relations

$$\underset{K=1}{\overset{8}{}}\gamma _{[ab}^{iK}\gamma _{cd]}^{jK}=\delta ^{ij}ϵ_{abcd},\underset{K=1}{\overset{8}{}}\gamma _{[ab}^{i^{}K}\gamma _{cd]}^{j^{}K}=\delta ^{i^{}j^{}}ϵ_{abcd},\underset{K=1}{\overset{8}{}}\gamma _{[ab}^{iK}\gamma _{cd]}^{j^{}K}=0,$$
(11)
where the spinor indices $`a,b,\mathrm{}`$ are restricted to be in the positive $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$–chirality (i.e. $`a=1,\mathrm{},4`$) or in the negative $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$–chirality (i.e. $`a=5,\mathrm{},8`$) subspace, while the vector indices $`i,j`$ run from $`1`$ to $`4`$, $`i^{},j^{}`$ from $`5`$ to $`8`$ and $`K`$ runs from $`1`$ to $`8`$. Eq. (11) is derived by a direct computation from the $`\gamma `$–matrix realization (2.1) and the relative minus sign between the first two relations is responsible for the puzzling features described above. However, in order to see the effects of the minus sign in Eq. (11), one does not have to go through the $`\gamma `$–matrix algebra. It is sufficient to use the transformation rules under $`Z_2`$ of the $`3`$–string amplitudes. Let us define the string amplitude

$$A^{IJ}:=(\mathrm{v},p_3^+|\alpha _{n(3)}^I\alpha _{n(3)}^J\mathrm{v},p_1^+|\alpha _{m(1)}^I\alpha _{m(1)}^J\mathrm{v},p_2^+|)|H_3,$$
(12)
and consider the string amplitudes $`A^{ij},A^{i^{}j^{}}`$. The oscillators444As already said we follow the conventions of  or  and denote with $`\alpha _n`$ the BMN string oscillators and with $`a_n`$ the oscillators usually employed in the string vertex. The relations are $`\alpha _n=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(a_{|n|}i\mathrm{sign}(n)a_{|n|})`$, for $`n0`$ and $`\alpha _0=a_0`$. inserted in $`A^{i^{}j^{}}`$ are just the $`Z_2`$ images of those inserted in $`A^{ij}`$. Moreover the operatorial content of the interaction (5) is $`Z_2`$ invariant. Thus one can insert $`Z_2^2=1`$ in the amplitude $`A^{ij}`$ and relate it to $`A^{i^{}j^{}}`$ with a coefficient of proportionality of $`(1)^3`$. In fact, the states $`|0`$ and $`|\mathrm{v}`$ cannot be even at the same time and the factor of $`(1)`$ comes either from the action of $`Z_2`$ on the external states or from the action on the kets in $`|H_3`$, according to the $`Z_2`$–parity chosen for $`|\mathrm{v}`$. Thus one is led to the conclusion that $`A^{ij}=A^{i^{}j^{}}`$. A similar argument, where one uses in addition the $`SO(4)\times SO(4)`$ invariance and the fact that the exchange $`(n,m)(n,m)`$ leaves invariant the oscillator contribution, implies that the mixed amplitudes $`A^{ij^{}}=0`$ 555We emphasize that these relations for $`A^{ij},A^{i^{}j^{}}`$ and $`Aij^{}`$ follow immediately from the fact that $`|0`$ is used in the construction of the vertex (5), while the perturbative string states are built on the true vacuum $`|\mathrm{v}`$. Thus they are independent of the choice of $`Z_2`$ parity assignment given to $`|0`$ and $`|\mathrm{v}`$.. Through more direct computations, these features of the vertex (5) were also noted in .

It is clear that, in order to obtain a different result for the amplitudes, it is not sufficient to switch from choice (7) to (10) keeping the operator part of $`|H_3`$ unchanged. So we will modify the operator part of $`|H_3`$ in order to construct a string interaction where both the 3-point vertex and the vacuum are $`Z_2`$-invariant (as it happens in flat–space with the $`SO(8)`$ invariance).

For this purpose, we just need to focus on the fermionic zero–modes. This part is constrained by the requirements that the string coordinates $`\theta `$ are continuous and that the conjugate momentum $`\lambda `$ is conserved. This means that we should find a state $`|\delta `$ in the product of the three Hilbert spaces of the external strings satisfying simultaneously

$$\underset{\mathrm{r}=1}{\overset{3}{}}\lambda _{0(\mathrm{r})}^a|\delta =0,\underset{\mathrm{r}=1}{\overset{3}{}}p_\mathrm{r}^+\theta _{0(\mathrm{r})}^a|\delta =0,$$
(13)
where $`\lambda _{(r)}`$ are the conjugate momenta of the fermions $`\theta _{(r)}`$. The solution of  is basically unique if one wants to keep the $`SO(8)`$ invariance. However, in the pp–wave background the symmetry is reduced and it is the smaller symmetry $`SO(4)\times SO(4)\times Z_2`$ that has to be preserved. This can be achieved by choosing

$$|\delta =\underset{a=1}{\overset{8}{}}\left(\underset{\mathrm{r}=1}{\overset{3}{}}\lambda _{0(\mathrm{r})}^a\right)\underset{a=1}{\overset{8}{}}\left(\underset{\mathrm{r}=1}{\overset{3}{}}p_\mathrm{r}^+\theta _{0(\mathrm{r})}^a\right)|\mathrm{v},p_1^+|\mathrm{v},p_2^+|\mathrm{v},p_3^+.$$
(14)
Here the fermionic delta function $`|\delta `$ satisfies the constraints (13). In fact, because of momentum conservation $`_{\mathrm{r}=1}^3p_\mathrm{r}^+=0`$, the operators $`_{\mathrm{r}=1}^3\lambda _{0(\mathrm{r})}^a`$, $`_{\mathrm{r}=1}^3p_\mathrm{r}^+\theta _{0(\mathrm{r})}^b`$ anti-commute for all $`a,b`$. Therefore in checking (13), one always encounters the square of a fermion oscillator and (13) are satisfied. Notice that in Eq. (14) it is crucial to use the $`SO(8)`$ breaking vacuum $`|\mathrm{v}`$. If the ground state $`|0`$ had been used in the r.h.s. of (14), one would have found a trivially vanishing result. Thus our proposal is to use this new solution to the fermionic constraints (13) and replace the combination $`E_b^0|0_1|0_2|0_3`$ in the vertex (5) with the fermionic delta-function defined in (14):

$$|H_3^{\mathrm{new}}=\left[K_I\stackrel{~}{K}_Jv^{IJ}E_aE_b^{}\right]|\delta .$$
(15)
However the explicit form of $`K_I`$, $`\stackrel{~}{K}_J`$ and $`v^{IJ}`$ is likely to be different from the one of flat–space. For the purposes of this letter we will only need to assume that $`v^{IJ}`$ contains a constant term proportional to $`\delta ^{IJ}`$.

### 2.3 Consequences on the bosonic amplitudes

An immediate advantage of the above modification is that now the zero-mode structure of the interaction Hamiltonian is $`Z_2`$–even with the natural choice (10). Thus the argument yielding $`A^{ij}=A^{i^{}j^{}}`$ cannot be applied if (14) is used and one can hope to avoid the puzzling features deriving from the interaction (5). Now we will prove that this is indeed the case.

Let us focus on string amplitudes involving external states built with only bosonic oscillators acting on the true vacuum $`|\mathrm{v}`$. In this case we will not need the precise form of the prefactor $`v^{IJ}`$. In fact, as noticed in  the prefactor can only contain creation oscillators. The lowering modes are irrelevant since they can read the vacuum structure of the vertex. The creation modes are defined with respect to the vacuum chosen in the interaction Hamiltonian. Since we write the string vertex in terms of the new zero–mode structure (14), the prefactor can only contain $`a^{}`$ and $`b^{}`$ oscillators. If we use external states with no fermionic oscillators, all the terms in the prefactor containing $`b^{}`$’s will not contribute to the amplitude, since they can act directly on the external states. This means that the only term of the prefactor matrix $`v^{IJ}`$ we will need is the constant part $`v^{IJ}=\delta ^{IJ}`$. This is conflict with the form $`v^{IJ}=\pm \delta ^{IJ}`$, $`+`$ for $`I,J=1,2,3,4`$, $``$ for $`I,J=5,6,7,8`$, as obtained in , which would give the following string amplitudes

$$A^{ij}=A^{i^{}j^{}},A^{ij^{}}=0,\text{if one uses }|H_3\text{ in Eq. (}\text{5}\text{)}.$$
(16)
On the other hand, it is clear that, due to the presence of the $`SO(8)`$ invariant $`v^{IJ}=\delta ^{IJ}`$, the string vertex (15) leads to

$$A^{ij}=A^{i^{}j^{}}=A^{ij^{}},\text{if one uses }|H_3^{\mathrm{new}}\text{ in Eq. (}\text{15}\text{)}.$$
(17)
Notice that these amplitudes are nonzero. To see this, let us denote the fermionic part common to all of them by

$$F:={}_{1}{}^{}\mathrm{v}|{}_{2}{}^{}\mathrm{v}|{}_{3}{}^{}\mathrm{v}|\underset{a=1}{\overset{8}{}}\left(\underset{\mathrm{r}=1}{\overset{3}{}}\lambda _{0(\mathrm{r})}^a\right)\underset{a=1}{\overset{8}{}}\left(\underset{\mathrm{r}=1}{\overset{3}{}}p_\mathrm{r}^+\theta _{0(\mathrm{r})}^a\right)|\mathrm{v}_{1}^{}|\mathrm{v}_{2}^{}|\mathrm{v}_{3}^{}.$$
(18)
Without loss of generality, let us take $`p_1^+,p_2^+>0,p_3^+<0`$. In terms of string oscillators $`b`$’s, we have (apart from numerical factors)

$$\theta _{0(\mathrm{r})}\frac{1}{\sqrt{p_\mathrm{r}^+}}\left(\begin{array}{c}b_{0(\mathrm{r})}\\ b_{0(\mathrm{r})}^{}\end{array}\right),\text{r=1,2};\theta _{0(3)}\frac{1}{\sqrt{|p_3^+|}}\left(\begin{array}{c}b_{0(3)}^{}\\ b_{0(3)}\end{array}\right),$$
(19)
thus

$`{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{8}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{r}=1}{\overset{3}{}}}p_\mathrm{r}^+\theta _{0(\mathrm{r})}^a|\mathrm{v}_1|\mathrm{v}_2|\mathrm{v}_3`$
$`=(p_3^+)^2b_{0(3)}^1\mathrm{}b_{0(3)}^4({\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{r}=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\sqrt{p_\mathrm{r}^+}b_{0(\mathrm{r})}^5)\mathrm{}({\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{r}=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\sqrt{p_\mathrm{r}^+}b_{0(\mathrm{r})}^8)|\mathrm{v}_1|\mathrm{v}_2|\mathrm{v}_3.`$ (20)
The eight fermion creators have to be annihilated by selecting the corresponding eight annihilators from the factor $`_{a=1}^8_{\mathrm{r}=1}^3\lambda _{0(\mathrm{r})}^a`$. From the expression in terms of oscillators

$$\lambda _{0(\mathrm{r})}\sqrt{p_\mathrm{r}^+}\left(\begin{array}{c}b_{0(\mathrm{r})}^{}\\ b_{0(\mathrm{r})}\end{array}\right),\text{r=1,2};\lambda _{0(3)}\sqrt{|p_3^+|}\left(\begin{array}{c}b_{0(3)}\\ b_{0(3)}^{}\end{array}\right),$$
(21)
and $`\{_{\mathrm{r}=1}^2\sqrt{p_\mathrm{r}^+}b_{0(\mathrm{r})}^a,_{\mathrm{r}=1}^2\sqrt{p_\mathrm{r}^+}b_{0(\mathrm{r})}^b\}=p_3^+\delta ^{ab}`$, it is easy to obtain

$$F=(p_3^+)^8.$$
(22)
## 3 Discussion

In this note we proposed a modification in the treatment of the fermionic zero–modes which explicitly satisfies all the symmetries of the plane–wave background. We also found that the new form of the string vertex gives results in direct agreement with the expected $`SO(8)`$ symmetry of the bosonic excitations666Notice, in fact, that the metric in (1) is $`SO(8)`$ symmetric and the breaking of this group is just due to a term in the fermionic Lagrangian coming from the R-R form.. Moreover, the interaction vertex discussed here matches in a simple way, from the string point of view, the explicit Yang–Mills computation of . However, one may think that even a small modification in the string vertex could ruin all the subtle cancellations necessary to have a consistent realization of the supersymmetry algebra on the interaction Hamiltonian. One may also worry about the assignment (10), because it is not what is done in flat–space. Let us first make some comments on this second issue.

The change of the definition of the fermionic vacuum in the pp–wave background is easy to understand. In fact an analogous change in the definition of the bosonic vacuum has already been performed . For strings in flat–space, one considers the eigenstates of the position or momentum operator as possible vacua. In particular, it has been known for a long time that the $`3`$–string interaction contains the following vacuum structure

$$|0_{\mathrm{f}.\mathrm{s}.}=\underset{\mathrm{r}=1}{\overset{3}{}}|x_{0(\mathrm{r})}^I=0;0_a=\underset{\mathrm{r}=1}{\overset{3}{}}𝑑p_{(\mathrm{r})}^I|p_{(\mathrm{r})}^I;0_a.$$
(23)
However, when $`\mu `$ is switched on in the world-sheet Lagrangian both the fermionic and the bosonic coordinates acquire a potential term of the harmonic oscillator type. Thus one cannot use the eigenstates of the position or momentum operator any more and has to change the definition of the vacuum. As usual the combination $`a^i=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2m}}(p^i+imx_0^i)`$ is introduced and the vacuum is defined as $`a^i|0_\mathrm{a}=0`$ (here $`m`$ is, of course, proportional to $`\mu `$). This vacuum also appears  in the $`3`$–string interaction, instead of the one (23) typical of flat space. This is precisely what is usually done in quantum mechanics when passing from a free particle to the case of a harmonic oscillator. What we are claiming is that also on the fermionic side, a different vacuum $`|\mathrm{v}`$ has to be chosen once a nonzero $`\mu `$ is turned on. We also claim that the vacuum state $`|\mathrm{v}`$ has to be a scalar in order to realize explicitly the $`SO(4)\times SO(4)\times Z_2`$ symmetry of the background.

The new realization of the fermionic constraints (14) may have consequences also on the general structure of the vertex and, in particular, of the prefactor. The kinematical part of the fermionic vertex can in principle be constructed exploiting the same idea used for the zero–modes. In fact, one can just multiply $`|\delta `$ by all the other modes of the two fermionic constraints (momentum conservation and coordinate continuity) and obtain an expression for $`E_b^{}`$ in Eq. (15) satisfying all the kinematical constraints. On the other hand, the explicit form of the prefactor is related to the realization of the dynamical generators and is more subtle. However, there is also a technical reason to suspect that the functional form of the fermionic vertex has to be changed with respect to the flat-space case. In fact, following the computation of , one sees that the realization of the supersymmetry algebra on $`|H_3`$ requires the identity $`(\theta _{0(1)}^a\theta _{0(2)}^a)|V=0`$ (here with $`|V`$ we indicate the ket state in the interaction Hamiltonian enforcing the string coordinate continuity and momentum conservation). In flat space this identity simply follows from the fact that the zero–modes $`\theta _{(0)}^a`$ are all destruction operators, since the vacuum $`|0`$ was used. Notice that this choice is basically forced by the requirement of $`SO(8)`$ invariance. On the pp–wave background, we have to use the real vacuum $`|\mathrm{v}`$ to construct the vertex $`|V`$, so one may have to change this step of the derivation. Thus the presence of $`|\mathrm{v}`$ may affect the realization of the supersymmetry algebra on $`|H_3`$, and the form of the prefactor in the complete vertex may be different from that appearing in the flat–space expression.

Let us conclude by noticing that the vertex in Eq. (5) yields a third puzzling prediction on the Yang–Mills side. In fact, beyond $`A^{ij}=A^{i^{}j^{}}`$ and $`A^{ij^{}}=0`$ already discussed, it turns out that all the amplitudes with external states dual to operators with just fermionic impurities should vanish. This again looks strange from the field theory point of view. This zero is not related to fermion zero–mode counting as the other two problems, but is instead a consequence of the full form of the interaction (5) where the vertex is at least quadratic in the bosonic oscillators. We have presented evidence in the above that the actual form of the functional prefactor may be different from the one of the flat–space vertex. Thus in order to see what are the predictions of the parity conserving interaction (15), we need to work out the exact form of the new $`K^I`$, $`\stackrel{~}{K}^I`$, $`v^{IJ}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^a`$.

Note added: The zero–mode structure (14) proposed in this paper was used to build a full kinematical vertex in . Two supersymmetric completions are possible for this vertex and have indeed been discussed in subsequent literature. One was obtained in  by requiring the continuity of the flat space limit $`\mu 0`$, which implies assigning an odd $`Z_2`$ parity both to the string vacuum $`|v`$ and the prefactor. In  the resulting vertex was shown to be equivalent to that proposed in . In  an alternative solution is put forward, where the choice proposed in this paper of an even $`Z_2`$ parity for the string vacuum is mantained, and this symmetry is therefore realized explicitly (i.e. both the interaction and the vacuum state are $`Z_2`$–invariant at the same time). In this approach, one gives up the smoothness of the flat space $`\mu 0`$ limit. In fact, this second solution follows the behaviour of supergravity in $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ more closely. The idea is that, since the PP–wave background can be seen as an approximate description of $`AdS_5\times S^5`$, even for small curvatures, the 3–state interaction has to be compared with the results in $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ rather than with the results of flat–space.

Concerning the comparison with the field theory description, two different approaches have been proposed,  and  (see  for an updated discussion). This paper is placed in the framework of , where string theory amplitudes are compared with field theory correlators. This proposal was explicitely checked in  for scalar BMN operators and these computations were subsequently extended also to BMN operators containing vector and fermion impurities . Finally, we would like to remark that a more general motivation for the proposal of  was provided in  by considering the Penrose limit of the AdS/CFT bulk–to–boundary formula of . This approach was extended in , where non–planar corrections to the gauge theory correlators are reproduced from the string side.

## Acknowledgments

CSC thanks Jan Plefka, Matthias Staudacher, Volker Schomerus, Stefan Theisen for helpful discussion. We would like to thank Alberto Zaffaroni for a very important remark. We acknowledge grants from ESPRC, Nuffield foundation, PPRAC of UK, NSC of Taiwan and INFN of Italy, and the support of the European Union under RTN contract HPRN-CT-2000-00131.