text:
# Large Moment Formation and Thermodynamic Properties of Disordered Spin Ladders with Site Dilution

## I Introduction

Quantum effects in one-dimensional spin systems have attracted prolonged interest from both theoretical and experimental physicists. These include quasi-long range order, topological order, and fluctuation induced excitation gap (e.g., the Haldane gap) that are purely quantum mechanical effects enhanced by the low-dimensionality of the systems. Among these quantum phenomena, the effects of disorder have been studied by many groups. It was found that disorder can qualitatively change the low temperature physics and produce rich disorder-dominated phases in these systems. One class of such systems which have received considerable attention are random antiferromagnetic spin chains. Most of the theoretical studies of random spin chains are based on the real space renormalization group (RSRG) method developed by Ma, Dasgupta, and Hu mdh  in this context, and Bhatt and Lee bl  in the study of doped semiconductors. This RSRG method was extended further by Fisher fisher1  and allows one to obtain results which are essentially exact for the random spin-1/2 chain. The application of this method to the other random spin chain models by a number of authors fisher2 ; westerberg ; hybg ; boechat ; hy ; monthus ; yb ; damle  has given us a better understanding of the behavior of these systems at low temperature.

Another example of 1D spin system that is of considerable recent interest is the two-leg antiferromagnetic spin-1/2 ladder.dagotto  It is known to have an excitation gap similar to the Haldane gap of integer AF spin chains, and short-range spin-spin correlation. Compared to the spin chains, only relatively few theoretical studies have been devoted to the study of disorder effects in spin ladders. Several authors have investigated the effects of bond randomness.og ; melin ; ek  It was found that the ladder is remarkably stable against weak bond randomness.og  Stronger randomness introduces a large density of low-energy excitations into the system,melin ; ek  which can lead to divergent spin susceptibility in the limit $`T0`$.ek  However, the spin-spin correlation remains short-ranged,ek  contrary to what occurs in strongly disordered AF spin chains.fisher1 ; hy

In real systems, bond randomness is typically induced by impurities away from the ladder, which distort the lattice structure (and hence coupling constants) without affecting the spins that form the ladder. Experimentally, another way to introduce and control disorder in the system is to introduce dopants that go directly into the ladder, so that the ions that carry the half-spin (typically the Cu ion) are randomly replaced by nonmagnetic ions (like Zn), or ions with other spin sizes (like Ni which carries spin-1). Such disorder not only induces lattice distortion, but also changes the lattice structure of the spin ladder through site-dilution etc, and thus has more dramatic effects. A number of experimentalazuma ; fujiwara  and theoreticalmotome ; sigrist ; iino ; martins2 ; miyazaki ; sandvik ; martins ; mikeska ; laukamp ; steiner ; gogolin  works have been devoted to study the doped two-leg spin-1/2 ladder, for example Sr(Cu1-xZnx)2O3, where some Cu ions are replaced by nonmagnetic Zn ions. It was found experimentally that even a small amount of nonmagnetic doping is enough to change the low-temperature behavior of the systems drastically, and gives rise to divergent susceptibility at low temperature. Theoretically, it is understood that a single Zn impurity induces an effective, localized spin-1/2 moment in the vicinity of the dopant; such localized moments immediately destroy the spin gap. motome ; martins2 ; martins  When there is a small but finite density of dopants, these effective spin-1/2 moments interact with each other, and currently there is no consensus on what the asymptotic low-temperature behavior is. Sigrist and Furusakisigrist  argued that the system can be mapped onto an effective model that is made of these effective half spins induced by the dopants forming a spin-1/2 chain, with random antiferromagnetic (AF) and ferromagnetic (F) couplings; this model is known to form large effective spins and exhibits Curie susceptibility at low $`T`$: $`\chi 1/T`$.westerberg  On the other hand, Gogolin et al. steiner ; gogolin  used the bosonization method to map the problem to a Dirac fermion with random mass, and concluded that the low $`T`$ susceptibility behaves as $`\chi 1/(T\mathrm{log}^2T)`$, which is the same as the random singlet phase;fisher1  no large moment formation was found in their work. Existing exact diagonalizationmotome  and quantum Monte Carlo calculationmotome ; iino ; miyazaki  do not have large enough system size to unambiguously resolve this discrepancy.

In this work we study disordered two-leg spin ladders with both bond randomness and site dilution (corresponding to Zn doping), using the RSRG method. As discussed earlier, in principle Zn doping introduces two types of disorder. Technically the presence of bond randomness is useful to us in our study as it introduces a separation of energy scales and justifies the usage of the RSRG method. Using this method we are able to study systems with sizes 100 times larger than those accessible in quantum Monte Carlo studies. In addition to the nonmagnetic (Zn) doping, we also study theoretically for the first time magnetic doping by replacing the Cu ions with Ni ions (or doping with $`S=1`$ impurities), a situation already realized experimentally.ohsugi

Our results are summarized as follows. As the RSRG procedure is carried out, effective spins (or moments) larger than 1/2 start to form; these large moments persist and grow without bound as the energy scale is lowered, regardless of the dopant concentrations (as long as it is non-zero) or the strength of bond randomness. Thus the presence of dopants drives the system into a new phase which is controlled by large spins, i.e. the Large Spin phase; the susceptibility at low temperature remains universal and follows $`1/T`$ behavior as $`T`$ goes to zero. The $`1/T`$ Curie behavior comes from the spins coupled together forming larger effective spins. Such behavior is very similar to that of random AF-F spin chain studied by Westerberg et al.,westerberg  as anticipated by Sigrist and Furusaki. While for any finite temperature range it is very difficult to distinguish between $`\chi 1/T`$ and $`\chi 1/(T\mathrm{log}^2T)`$, we further find that the Curie coefficient of $`\chi `$ approaches that predicted by Sigrist and Furusaki based on analogy to the random AF-F spin chain. We thus conclude that the low energy behaviors of disorder spin ladders are the same as those of random AF-F spin chains.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we introduce the model we use and review the application of RSRG to this model. In Sec. III we present our numerical results, compare them to previous works, and discuss the significance of our results. In Sec. IV we summarize our work and discuss the implications of our results.

## II The Model and Review of previous results

The model we consider in this work describes a disordered antiferromagnetic two-leg spin-1/2 ladder. The Hamiltonian for this model is given by :

$$H=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\underset{j=1,2}{}J_{i,j}𝑺_{i,j}𝑺_{i+1,j}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}K_i𝑺_{i,1}𝑺_{i,2},$$
(1)
where $`𝑺_{i,j}`$ is a spin-1/2 operator when there are no dopants, and the positive coupling constants $`J_{i,j}`$ (couplings along the chains, or legs of the ladder) and $`K_i`$ (couplings between the chains, or along the rungs of the ladder) are distributed randomly according to some probability distributions $`P_{}(J_{i,j})`$ and $`P_{}(K_i)`$. $`N`$ is used to represent the number of sites for a single chain. The dopant concentration is given by $`z`$, namely we put $`2Nz`$ nonmagnetic impurities (Zn doping) or magnetic impurities (Ni doping) on the ladder; for nonmagnetic impurities we simply remove the spins at the impurity sites, while for magnetic impurities we replace the spin-1/2 operators by spin-1 operators at the impurity sites.

We use the real-space renormalization-group (RSRG) method to study this problem. Application of the RSRG procedure with proper extensions to the ladder systems has been discussed at length in Ref. ek, , and we refer the readers to that article for details. For the purpose of later comparison, here we briefly review some of the relevant results of that work, which studies the effects of bond randomness without non-magnetic or magnetic (spin-1) dopants going into the ladder.

When the RSRG procedure is carried out in ladders with no dopants, it was found that ferromagnetic (F) couplings are generated, and some effective spins with sizes bigger than 1/2 are formed because these ferromagnetic bonds may become the strongest bond in the system at some stage of RG.ek  However, the percentage of these large effective spins remains low at all stages of RG, and in the low-energy limit, their percentage decreases as the energy scale is going down, due to the fact that the overall strength of the ferromagnetic bonds becomes much weaker than that of the antiferromagnetic bonds, even though they have roughly the same numbers. Such behavior may be understood in the following way. With nearest neighbor couplings only, the ladder has a bipartite lattice structure which means the system can be divided into two sublattices (A and B), and spins sitting on sublattice A are always coupled to spins sitting on sublattice B, and vice versa. In the absence of dopants, the number of spins in the two sublattices are strictly equal, and Marshall’s theorem marshall  dictates that the ground state is a total spin singlet in this case. Heuristically this is easy to see: the spins in the same sublattice tend to be parallel while those in opposite sublattices tend to be antiparallel, and there is a total cancellation when the number of spins are the same in the two sublattices. The disappearance of large effective spins in the low-energy limit is simply a reflection of this cancellation effect.

As we will see below, the situation becomes very different in the presence of dopants. In this case the dopants go onto lattice sites randomly, thus there are fluctuations in the numbers of dopants going onto the two different sublattices, even though on average they are the same. Such fluctuations destroy the perfect cancellation discussed above, and as we see below, lead to large moment formation in the long-distance, low-energy limit, which in turn changes the thermodynamic properties of the system qualitatively.

## III Numerical Results

We present numerical results for the spin ladder with the length of the ladder up to 100 000 (200 000 total spins). We decimate the strongest bond in the system defined as the bond with the largest energy gap, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, between the ground state and the first excited state. The decimation process is repeated until the number of spins left is less than 1% of the original number of spins in the system. The initial distributions are taken to be in power-law form:note

$`P_{}(J_{i,j})`$ $`=`$ $`(1\alpha )J_{i,j}^\alpha ,0<J_{i,j}<1;`$
$`P_{}(K_i)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1\alpha }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{1\alpha }}}K_i^\alpha ,0<K_i<\mathrm{\Lambda }.`$ (2)
Here $`0\alpha <1`$ is the measure of bond disorder (the bigger $`\alpha `$, the stronger the randomness strength), and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the anisotropy parameter; in the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ the two chains decouple. The nonmagnetic or $`S=1`$ magnetic dopants are distributed randomly throughout the system.

We start by discussing the effects of nonmagnetic dopants on the spin ladder. Due to the generation of F bonds in the RSRG procedure, effective spins with sizes bigger than 1/2 are formed as RSRG is carried out. The question whether or not these large effective spins proliferate at low energy is very important. In the undoped case (with bond randomness only), we have shown ek  that these large effective spins do not proliferate for the reasons discussed in section II. The situation becomes completely different when a finite percentage of dopants are introduced into the ladder. This is shown in Fig. 1(a) and (b) where we plot the fraction of spins larger than 1/2, and in Fig. 1(c) where we plot the average spin size for different dopant concentrations as a function of cutoff $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, for $`\alpha =0`$ and $`\alpha =0.6`$, both with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$. For dopant concentrations bigger than 1% there is a very clear indication for large spin proliferation at low energy. The fraction of spins larger than 1/2 grows without bound as the energy scale is lowered. This picture is also supported by the results for the average spin size which show no sign of decreasing. This is in sharp contrast with zero doping, which is also included for comparison. The behavior for lower dopant concentrations ($`<`$ 1%) is more interesting. In this regime we see a clear turnover in the graphs where the fraction of spins larger than 1/2 initially increases with decreasing energy scale, reaches a maximum, then it decreases before it begins to rise again (see Fig. 1(b)). Our interpretation of this behavior is the following. For very low dopant concentrations, the effects of the dopants are very weak, and the system behaves like an undoped spin ladder at higher energy scales down to a certain energy scale $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$. Below $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$, the effect of these dopants kicks in and eventually dominates the physics, and the system flows into the Large Spin phase. Thus in a way the dopants are relevant perturbations in the RG sense.

The proliferation of large effective spins can be understood from the following analysis. The nonmagnetic impurities introduced into the system can go into either sublattice A or B with equal probability, so in average the number of dopants in the two sublattices are equal. However, due to statistical fluctuations, the number of dopants in the two sublattices are not equal in specific realizations of the random distributions. In particular, in any finite segments of the system, the fluctuations leave some of the half spins uncompensated for and destroy the perfect cancellation discussed in Sec. II, and the number of such spins grows as the square root of the size of the segment. The large effective spins that get generated under RG have the same spin size as the ground state spin quantum number of the finite segments that they are made of, thus the proliferation of large spin at low energies is simply reflecting the growing fluctuation of the spin size of longer and longer segments.

The thermodynamic properties of the doped ladders are dramatically influenced by the presence of large effective spins in the system. Fig. 2 shows the magnetic susceptibility for ladders with $`\alpha =0`$ and $`\alpha =0.6`$ with varying dopant concentrations, all with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$. We associate the temperature with the cutoff $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ where we stop the RG procedure and calculate the contribution from the active spins to the susceptibility. These active spins consist of undecimated half spins and effective spins larger than 1/2 generated during the decimation process. All the spins that have been decimated down to the cutoff $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ do not contribute to the susceptibility. All the active spins are treated as free spins, so the contribution can be calculated using :

$$\chi _{tot}=\frac{g\mu _B^2}{3k_BT}\underset{s}{}N_ss(s+1),$$
(3)
where $`N_s`$ is the number of spins left at energy scale $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=k_BT`$ for a given spin size $`s`$ and the summation runs over all possible spin sizes.

In all cases we find that at low temperature the susceptibility can be fit very well to a Curie-like behavior $`\chi T^1`$, which is insensitive to specific details of the systems, like the strength of bond randomness and the dopant concentrations. Such behavior agrees with the predictions of Sigrist and Furusakisigrist  but it is very different from what we found earlier on the undoped ladders with bond randomness only, where the low-$`T`$ susceptibility follows non-universal power laws with an exponent that depends on the bond disorder strength as well as the strength of the interchain interactions. We note that while our results agree with the Curie behavior predicted by Sigrist and Furusaki, due to the limited temperature range, they may also be fit to the Random-Singlet like behavior $`\chi 1/(T\mathrm{log}^2T)`$ that Gogolin et al. steiner ; gogolin  suggested, which differs from the Curie behavior with a factor that only has a logarithmic dependence on $`T`$. In order to further clarify the situation, we study the dependence of the Curie coefficient on the parameters of the system and compare it with predictions made by Sigrist and Furusaki.

The $`1/T`$ Curie behavior is usually associated with free spins. In our case however, the $`1/T`$ dependence has a very different origin; it comes from the strongly correlated effective spins formed during the RG procedure, due to the existence of ferromagnetic couplings, which form clusters whose average size grow in a random walk fashion at low temperature. Sigrist and Furusaki sigrist , in their effective model have shown, using the random walk argument similar to that used in Ref. westerberg, , that the Curie constant for finite dopant concentrations is given by :

$$\chi T=z\mu _B^2/(12k_B).$$
(4)
On the other hand, if the effective spins induced by the dopants behave like free spins, and the Curie constant is given by

$$\chi T=z\mu _B^2/(4k_B).$$
(5)
We plot the Curie constants for $`\alpha =0`$ and 0.6, each with two different dopant concentrations, 2% and 4%, as a function of temperature in Fig. 3. The figure shows that at low temperature, the Curie constants deviate significantly from the free spin Curie constant, Eq. 5, and approach the asymptotic limit, Eq. 4. This strongly suggests that the effective spins are strongly correlated and the susceptibilities follow $`1/T`$ behavior at low temperature due to large moment formation. If the susceptibilities were to follow $`1/(T`$ log$`{}_{}{}^{2}T)`$, as Gogolin et al.gogolin  suggested, the Curie constants would go to zero at low temperature. While we do see that the Curie constants decrease with decreasing $`T`$, they are approaching constants given by Eq. 4 in the low-$`T`$ limit, instead of going to zero. We thus conclude that our data strongly support the results of Sigrist and Furusaki.sigrist  We note that Miyazaki et al.miyazaki  used quantum Monte Carlo method to calculate the Curie coefficients of the doped ladder with different dopant concentrations. They were unable to obtain conclusive results for the coefficients due to the fact that the system size studied was not large enough to probe deep into the low temperature regime.

The temperature dependence of susceptibility also gives us some information how the system crosses over from one behavior (at high $`T`$) to another (at low $`T`$). In Fig. 2 we plot the susceptibility with different dopant concentrations for $`\alpha =0`$ and $`\alpha =0.6`$ as a function of temperature. The inset of each figure shows the part of susceptibilities where the crossover into a new behavior occurs. This crossover is particularly clear for $`\alpha =0`$. As we vary the dopant concentrations, from 0% to 2%, there is a clear turnover in the susceptibilities. In the undoped limit, the susceptibility goes to zero as $`T0`$. For very small $`z`$, $`\chi `$ follows this behavior at higher $`T`$, as the effect of the dopants have not yet dominated the contribution to $`\chi `$. However at low enough temperature the effects of the dopants start to dominate; this is characterized as the susceptibility begins to increase and finally becomes divergent as the temperature is decreased below a certain crossover scale. The same behavior can also be seen for $`\alpha =0.6`$ although it is not as pronounced as for $`\alpha =0`$, because in the undoped limit, $`\chi `$ is already divergent as a power-law of $`T`$, and the power law exponent is given by $`\beta 0.4`$. ek  Introducing a small amount of dopants into the system alters the physics at sufficiently low temperature where the susceptibilities have different power law exponent.

One important observation from the numerical results is that in the presence of a finite dopant concentration, the physics of the systems in the low temperature limit is not sensitive to the choice of the distribution of the bond randomness. The low energy physics for two quite different bond randomness strength $`\alpha =0`$ and $`0.6`$, as shown in Fig. 1, 2, and 3, are essentially the same. In both cases the systems are controlled by large effective spins at low energy and the susceptibilities follow $`1/T`$ behavior at low temperature, and the Curie constants are approaching the same asymptotic limit, given by Eq. 4, which depends on dopant concentration only. Thus the insensitivity of the results on the specific form of the bond distribution justifies our choice of the bond distribution based on convenience. We note that it tends to flow to a power-law form even if it does not have such form initially; thus by choosing such a form it puts one closer to the asymptotic form and reduces finite size effects.

We now turn our discussion to the effects of magnetic dopants with spin-1 on the spin ladders, which turn out to be very similar to those of non-magnetic dopants. In Fig. 4 we plot the fraction of spin larger than 1/2, the average spin size as a function of cutoff $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, and the susceptibility as a function of temperature with different magnetic dopant concentrations. As we can see from these figures, the qualitative behavior of the system doped with magnetic impurities at low energy are the same as that doped with nonmagnetic impurities. Large spin formations are seen at low energies which grow continuously as the energy is decreased. The similarity in the effects of these two different types of dopants lies in the fact that they both induce spin-1/2 local moments, and uncompensated spins in finite segments, due to the fluctuation in the number of dopants going into the two different sublattices. This is the origin of the proliferation of large effective spins at low energies, and the $`1/T`$ Curie dependence of the susceptibility.

## IV Summary and Discussions

We have studied antiferromagnetic two-leg spin-1/2 ladders with bond randomness and site dilution/magnetic impurity by means of a real-space renormalization-group scheme. We found that there is proliferation of large effective spins at low energy for non zero dopant concentrations. These large effective spins show the tendency of growing without bound as the energy scale is lowered. The susceptibility of the doped spin ladder follows Curie-like $`1/T`$ behavior at low temperature. This behavior remains universal regardless of the dopant concentrations and the strength of bond randomness. We also find the Curie coefficient is controled by the dopant concentration only, and agrees with that predicted by Sigrist and Furusaki.sigrist  We conclude that non zero dopant concentrations always drive the system into a phase dominated by the large effective spins. The large effective spins control the low temperature physics of the system which makes the the doped ladder behaves in many respects like the random spin chain with random ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic interactions. This is very different from what we found in our earlier work for ladders with bond randomness only,ek  where no large spin proliferation was found, and the susceptibility at low temperature follows non-universal pwoer law: $`\chi T^\beta `$ with an exponent $`\beta `$ that depends on the strength of bond randomness and the strength of interchain interactions.

Unfortunately at present we cannot make a direct comparison between our results and experiments, because in the systems studied so far the doped ladders all form long-range antiferromagnetic order at low temperature, due to the presence of 3D inter-ladder couplings not included in our study.

While reaching the same conclusions, we used a different approach in our study of the doped ladders as compared with the work of Sigrist and Furusaki.sigrist  They focused exclusively on the effective spins that are induced by the dopants, and neglected all the original spins, justified by the fact that without the dopants and the effective spins they induce, the system is gapped. Thus the model they used is an effective model appropriate for describing the low-$`T`$ properties of the system. In our study on the other hand we include all the original degrees of freedom (the original spins), and systematically lower the energy scale by decimating strong bonds one by one. Our approach thus treats high- and low-energy degrees of freedom on equal footing, and allows us to address both the high-$`T`$ and low-$`T`$ properties of the systems, and the crossover between them. Thus our study is complementary to that of Sigrist and Furusaki.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by NSF grants No. DMR-9971541 and DMR-0225698, the Research Corporation, and the Center for Materials Research and Technology (MARTECH). K.Y. was also supported in part by the A. P. Sloan Foundation.


format: text

text:
# Magnetic monopoles with generalized quantization condition

## I Introduction

In his remarkable paper Dirac Dir  showed that a proper description of the quantum mechanics of a charged particle of the charge $`e`$ in the field of the magnetic monopole of the charge $`q`$ requires the quantization condition $`2\mu `$ (we set $`\mu =eq`$ and $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$). There are strong mathematical and physical arguments why this condition must be fulfilled Dir ; Sw\_1 ; Wu1 ; Wu2 ; Jac ; Gr ; Gr1 ; G1 ; G2 ; G3 . For instance, it restores associativity of the translation group for the charge-monopole system, ensures the absence of an Aharanov-Bohm effect produced by a Dirac string, arises as natural condition of the description pointlike Abelian magnetic monopole in the framework of fibre bundle theory. Finally, Dirac’s quantization condition can be derived employing the unitary representation of the rotation group.

In our paper we show that there exists the consistent theory of the magnetic monopole with an arbitrary magnetic charge. It requires nonunitary representations of the rotation group and nonassociative generalization of gauge transformations and fibre bundles theory, where a gauge group is replaced by gauge loop.

## II Preliminaries

A magnetic field of the monopole is

$$𝐁=q\frac{𝐫}{r^3},$$
(1)
and as well known any choice of the vector potential $`𝐀`$ being compatible with Eq. (1) must have singularities. For instance, Dirac introduced the vector potential as

$$𝐀_𝐧=q\frac{𝐫\times 𝐧}{r(r𝐧𝐫)}$$
(2)
where the unit vector $`𝐧`$ determines the direction of a string $`S_𝐧`$ passing from the origin of coordinates to $`\mathrm{}`$ Dir . Schwinger’s choice is

$$𝐀^{SW}=\frac{1}{2}\left(𝐀_𝐧+𝐀_𝐧\right)=q\frac{(𝐧𝐫)𝐫\times 𝐧}{r\left(r^2(𝐧𝐫)^2\right)},$$
(3)
and the string is propagated from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$ Sw\_1 .

It is easy verify that

$$\mathrm{rot}𝐀_𝐧=𝐁𝐡_𝐧,\mathrm{rot}𝐀^{SW}=𝐁𝐡^{SW}$$

where

$`𝐡_𝐧=4\pi q𝐧{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\delta ^3(𝐫𝐧\tau )𝑑\tau ,`$ (4)
$`𝐡^{SW}=2\pi q𝐧{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\delta ^3(𝐫𝐧\tau )𝑑\tau `$ (5)
determine the magnetic field of the respective strings. Both vector potentials yield the same magnetic monopole field, however the quantization is different, while the Dirac condition is $`2\mu =p`$, the Schwinger one is $`\mu =p,p`$.

These two strings are members of a family $`\{𝐒_𝐧^\kappa \}`$ with the magnetic field given by

$`𝐡_𝐧^\kappa =\kappa 𝐡_𝐧+(1\kappa )𝐡_𝐧`$ (6)
where $`\kappa `$ is a weight of a semi-infinite Dirac’s string. Further we call $`𝐒_𝐧^\kappa `$ a weighted string.

For a non relativistic charged particle in the field of a magnetic monopole the equations of motion

$$\ddot{𝐫}=\frac{\mu }{r^3}𝐫\times \dot{𝐫}$$
(7)
imply that the total angular momentum

$$𝐉=𝐫\times \left(𝐩e𝐀\right)\mu \frac{𝐫}{r}$$
(8)
is conserved. The last term in Eq.(8) usually is interpreted as the contribution of the electromagnetic field, which carries an angular momentum Gol1 ; Gol2 ; Lyn

$$𝐋_{em}=\frac{1}{4\pi }𝐫\times (𝐄\times 𝐁)d^3r=\mu \frac{𝐫}{r}.$$

The operator

$$𝐉=𝐫\times \left(ie𝐀\right)\mu \frac{𝐫}{r},$$
(9)
representing the angular momentum $`𝐉`$, has the same properties as a standard angular momentum and obeys the following commutation relations:

$`[H,𝐉^2]=0,[H,J_i]=0,[𝐉^2,J_i]=0,`$ (10)
$`[J_i,J_j]=iϵ_{ijk}J_k`$ (11)
where $`H`$ is the Hamiltonian. Notice that the commutation relations fail on the string, however, $`H`$ and $`𝐉`$ may be extended to self-adjoint operators satisfying the commutation relations of Eqs. (10), (11) for any value of $`\mu `$ Zw\_1 ; H ; Str .

Now following Wu1 ; Wu2 , let us cover the two-dimensional sphere $`S^2`$ of fixed radius $`r>0`$ by two neighborhoods $`0\theta <\pi /2+\epsilon `$ and $`\pi /2\epsilon \theta <\pi `$. The vector potential is taken to be

$`𝐀_N=q{\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{cos}\theta }{r\mathrm{sin}\theta }}\widehat{𝐞}_\phi ,𝐀_S=q{\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{cos}\theta }{r\mathrm{sin}\theta }}\widehat{𝐞}_\phi `$ (12)
where $`(r,\theta ,\phi )`$ are the spherical coordinates. Notice that $`𝐀_{N,S}`$ have singularities on $`(S,N)`$ pole of the sphere and in the overlap of the neghborhoods $`𝐀_N`$ and $`𝐀_S`$ are related by a gauge transformation.

Choosing the vector potential as $`𝐀_N`$ we have

$`J_\pm =e^{\pm i\phi }\left(\pm {\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta }}+i\mathrm{cot}\theta {\displaystyle \frac{}{\phi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \mathrm{sin}\theta }{1+\mathrm{cos}\theta }}\right),`$ (13)
$`J_0=i{\displaystyle \frac{}{\phi }}\mu ,`$ (14)
$`𝐉^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta }}\left(\mathrm{sin}\theta {\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta }}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\phi ^2}}+`$
$`+i{\displaystyle \frac{2\mu }{1+\mathrm{cos}\theta }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\phi }}+\mu ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{cos}\theta }{1+\mathrm{cos}\theta }}+\mu ^2`$ (15)
where $`J_\pm =J_x\pm iJ_y`$ are the raising and the lowering operators for $`J_0=J_z`$.

Schrödinger’s equation written in the spherical coordinates as

$$\left(\frac{1}{2mr^2}\frac{}{r}\left(r^2\frac{}{r}\right)+\frac{(𝐉^2\mu ^2)}{2mr^2}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }=E\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(16)
admits the separation of variables and, putting $`\mathrm{\Psi }=R(r)Y(\theta ,\phi )`$ into Eq. (16), we get

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2mr^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}\left(r^2{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{l(l+1)\mu ^2}{2mr^2}}\right)R(r)=ER(r),`$
$`𝐉^2Y(\theta ,\phi )=l(l+1)Y(\theta ,\phi ).`$ (17)
Starting from $`J_0Y_\mu =mY_\mu `$ and writing

$`Y_\mu =e^{i\alpha \phi }z^{\alpha /2}(1z)^{\beta /2}F,`$
$`\alpha =m+\mu ,\beta =m\mu `$
where $`z=(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )/2`$, we obtain the resultant equation in the standard form of the hypergeometric equation,

$`z(1z){\displaystyle \frac{d^2F}{dz^2}}+\left(c(a+b+1)z\right){\displaystyle \frac{dF}{dz}}abF=0`$ (18)
where

$`c=m+\mu +1,a+b=2m+1,`$
$`ab=(ml)(l+m+1).`$ (19)
The hypergeometric function $`F(a,b;c;z)`$ diverges when $`\mathrm{}(cba)1`$, and it reduces to a polynomial of degree $`n`$ in $`z`$ when $`a`$ or $`b`$ is equal to $`n,(n=0,1,2,\mathrm{})`$. For $`a`$ being negative integer we find that the corresponding solution of Eq.(18) is of the form Ab ; GAN

$`F=z^\delta (1z)^\gamma p_n(z)`$ (20)
where $`p_n(z)`$ is a polynomial in $`z`$ of degree $`n`$.

Here we are looking for the regular solutions, like (20), of the Schrödinger equation (17). The requirement of the wave function being single valued force us to take $`m+\mu `$ as an integer. The respective regular solution is given by

$`Y_\mu =C_{lm\mu }e^{i(m+\mu )\phi }z^{\alpha /2}(1z)^{\beta /2}F(a,b;c;z),`$ (21)
$`\alpha =m+\mu ,\beta =m\mu ,c=m+\mu +1`$
where $`C_{lm\mu }`$ is the normalization and for the parameters $`a`$ and $`b`$ we have:

$`a=n,b=n+\alpha +\beta +1,\mathrm{if}\alpha =0,1,2,\mathrm{},`$
$`a=n+1,b=n\alpha \beta ,\mathrm{if}\alpha =1,2,\mathrm{}.`$
It follows that $`F`$ reduces to the Jacobi polynomials $`P_n^{(\alpha ,\beta )}`$ so that $`Y_\mu `$ takes the form (compare with Wu2 ; Lyn )

$`Y_l^{(\mu ,n)}=C_{ln\mu }e^{i\alpha \phi }(1u)^{|\alpha |/2}(1+u)^{|\beta |/2}P_n^{(|\alpha |,|\beta |)}(u),`$
$`\alpha =l+\mu n,\beta =l\mu n`$ and $`l=m+n`$. Since $`m+\mu `$ is an integer we conclude that $`l+\mu `$ must be an integer too.

The function $`Y_l^{(\mu ,n)}`$ is a member of a family $`\{Y_{\kappa ,l}^{(\mu ,n)}\}`$ such that

$$Y_{\kappa ,l}^{(\mu ,n)}=\text{e}^{i2\kappa \mu \phi }Y_l^{(\mu ,n)}$$
(22)
is a solution of the Schrödinger equation corresponding to the vector potential

$$𝐀^\kappa =\kappa 𝐀_S+(1\kappa )𝐀_N.$$

The requirement $`Y_{\kappa ,l}^{(\mu ,n)}`$ being single valued yields $`2\kappa \mu `$ being integer. Thus, for a given $`\mu `$ a weight $`\kappa `$ is quantizied parameter in units of $`\mu `$.

The wave functions $`Y_{\kappa ,l}^{(\mu ,n)}`$ form a complete set of orthonormal solutions that implies any solution $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\theta ,\phi ;\mu ,\kappa )`$ can be expanded as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\underset{ln}{}C_{ln}Y_{\kappa ,l}^{(\mu ,n)},C_{ln}=Y_{\kappa ,l}^{(\mu ,n)}|\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(23)
Similar consideration can be done for the vector potential $`𝐀_S`$. In this case $`(l\mu )`$ and the corresponding wave functions being $`Y_{\kappa ,l}^{(\mu ,n)}=Y_{1\kappa ,l}^{(\mu ,n)}`$ form a complete set of orthonormal solutions as well.

For $`(l\pm \mu )`$ and $`2\kappa \mu `$ all being integers we call the functions $`Y_{\kappa ,l}^{(\pm \mu ,n)}`$ weighted monopole harmonics. They are regular for the all allowed values of $`l,n`$ and $`\mu `$. When $`n+\alpha `$, $`n+\beta `$ and $`n+\alpha +\beta `$ all are integers $`0`$ and $`\kappa =0`$ the weighted monopole harmonics are reduced to the monopole harmonics introduced by Wu and Yang Wu2 , and the imposed here restrictions on the values of $`n,\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ yield the Dirac quantization condition.

## III Nonunitary representations of the rotation group and solution of Dirac’s monopole problem

It is known that the unitary representations of the rotation group leads to Dirac’s quantization condition, $`2\mu `$ H ; Zw\_1 ; Str ; Fi . Thus, the unique way to avoid the Dirac’s rule is to consider nonunitray representations. In what follows, assuming $`\mu `$ being arbitrary parameter, we are looking for nonunitary representations of the rotation group relating to an arbitrary magnetic charge W ; Com2 .

For $`l(l+1)`$ being value of the Casimir operator

$`C=J_0^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(J_{}J_++J_+J_{}).`$ (24)
we denote the states by $`|l,n,n=0,1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}`$. For the representations bounded below we obtain

$`J_+|l,n=\sqrt{(2l+n)(n+1)}|l,n+1,`$ (25)
$`J_{}|l,n=\sqrt{n(2l+n1)}|l,n1,`$ (26)
$`J_0|l,n=(l+n)|l,n.`$ (27)
The representation is characterized by the eigenvalue $`l`$ of the highest-weight state: $`|l,0`$ such that $`J_{}|l,0=0`$ and $`J_0|l,0=l|l,0`$. Comparing Eqs. (27) with $`J_0Y_l^{\mu ,m}=mY_l^{\mu ,m}`$ and remembering that $`m+\mu `$ (see Sec. 2) we conclude that $`l+\mu `$ is an integer. Thus, the representation bounded below also can be characterized by $`l+\mu `$ being integer. Taking into account the restriction following from the Schrd̈inger equation: $`l(l+1)\mu ^20`$, we find that the allowed values of $`l`$ are

$`l=|\mu |+\{(\mu +|\mu |)\}+k,k=0,1,2,\mathrm{}.`$ (28)
For the representation bounded above we have

$`J_+|l,n=\sqrt{n(2l+n1))}|l,n1,`$ (29)
$`J_{}|l,n=\sqrt{(n+1)(2l+n)}|l,n+1,`$ (30)
$`J_0|l,n=(l+n)|l,n.`$ (31)
This representation is characterized by the eigenvalue $`l`$ of the highest-weight state: $`|l,0`$ such that $`J_+|l,0=0`$ and $`J_0|l,0=l|l,0`$. We found that in this case $`l\mu `$ is an integer and the allowed values of $`l`$ are

$`l=|\mu |+\{\mu |\mu |\}+k,k=0,1,2,\mathrm{}.`$ (32)
The obtained representations can be realized in the space of holomorphic functions of a complex variable $`z`$. Following Jac1a  we assign a “wave function” $`z|l,n`$ by

$`(l+\mu )z|l,n=Az^n,`$ (33)
$`(l\mu )z|l,n=Az^{2ln},`$ (34)
where $`A=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2l+n)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(2l1)}`$ is a normalization, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ being the Gamma function. The monomials (33) and (34) form the basis for the analytic functions in the unit disc $`D:|z|1`$ and in $`\stackrel{~}{D}:|z|1`$ respectively.

The Lie algebra is realized by the differential operators:

$`J_+=z^2_z+2lz,J_{}=_z,J_0=z_z+l,`$ (35)
$`[J_+,J_{}]=2J_0,[J_0,J_\pm ]=\pm J_\pm ,`$ (36)
and an arbitrary state of the representation is of the form

$`f(z)={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}f_nz|l,n`$ (37)
The inner product of two holomorphic functions is defined as follows:

$`(l+\mu )f|g={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _D}𝑑\overline{z}𝑑z{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{f}g}{(1|z|^2)^{22l}}},`$ (38)
$`(l\mu )f|g={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{\stackrel{~}{D}}}𝑑\overline{z}𝑑z{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{f}g}{(|z|^21)^{22l}}}.`$ (39)
With the introduced inner product the group representation is infinite dimensional, irreducible and nonunitary.

Finite-dimensional representation arises when $`l`$ takes the exceptional values $`2l=p`$ with $`p`$ being positive integer. In this case the representation is unitary and bounded from above and below. One has the standard selectional rules: $`l=|\mu |+k,k=0,1,2,\mathrm{},m=l,\mathrm{},l,`$ and the Dirac quantization condition holds Wu2 .

Returning to the eigenvalues equations

$`𝐉^2Y(z)=l(l+1)Y(z),`$ (40)
$`J_0Y(z)=\pm (l+n)Y(z)`$ (41)
we see that their solutions given by eigenfunctions $`Y_l^{(\mu ,n)}(z)`$ of Eqs. (33), (34) satisfy the Schrd̈inger equation (17). Introducing the wave function as follows: $`\mathrm{\Psi }(r,z)=R(r)Y(z)`$, where $`Y(z)`$ is a holomorphic function:

$`Y(z)={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}f_nz|l,n`$ (42)
we obtain the solution of the monopole problem inside of the unit disc and for an arbitrary monopole charge.

For $`D_\pm `$ being unit disc we relate $`zD_+`$ to the points of the upper semi sphere $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_+`$ via the stereographic projection from the south pole and $`zD_{}`$ to the points of the lower semi-sphere $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}`$ via the stereographic projection from the noth pole. Covering the two- sphere $`S^2`$ as follows: $`S^2=D_+D_{}`$, we have the solution of the Schrödinger equation of the form $`\mathrm{\Psi }(r,\theta ,\phi )=\mathrm{\Psi }_+\mathrm{\Psi }_{}`$ for the whole sphere. In the intersection $`D_+D_{}`$ the functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\pm `$ must satisfy the relation: $`\mathrm{\Psi }_+=\mathrm{\Psi }_{}`$.

## IV Gauge transformations and monopole charge quantization

Before proceeding let us note that with the representations $`(l\pm \mu )`$ are related two string families: $`\{S_𝐧^\kappa \}`$ and $`\{S_𝐧^{\stackrel{~}{\kappa }}\}`$. Their respective vector potentials are

$`A_𝐧^\kappa =\kappa A_𝐧+(1\kappa )A_𝐧,2\kappa \mu ,`$ (43)
$`A_𝐧^{\stackrel{~}{\kappa }}=\stackrel{~}{\kappa }A_𝐧+(1\stackrel{~}{\kappa })A_𝐧,2\stackrel{~}{\kappa }\mu .`$ (44)
and the change $`S_𝐧^\kappa S_𝐧^{\stackrel{~}{\kappa }}`$ is given by the following gauge transformation:

$`A_𝐧^{\stackrel{~}{\kappa }}=A_𝐧^\kappa d\chi _𝐧^\gamma ,\stackrel{~}{\kappa }=1\kappa \gamma ,`$ (45)
$`d\chi _𝐧^\gamma =2\gamma q{\displaystyle \frac{(𝐫\times 𝐧)d𝐫}{r^2(𝐧𝐫)^2}},`$ (46)
$`\chi _𝐧`$ being polar angle in the plane orthogonal to $`𝐧`$.

We start with an observation that due to the string quantization one has the equivalence relation: $`2\kappa ^{}\mu =2\kappa \mu mod`$. Therefore, further we restrict ourselves by the gauge transformations, that do not change the weight of the string, $`S_𝐧^\kappa S_𝐧^{}^\kappa `$. It produces the transformation $`(𝐀_𝐧^\kappa ,\mathrm{\Psi }_𝐧^\kappa )(𝐀_𝐧^{}^\kappa ,\mathrm{\Psi }_𝐧^{}^\kappa )`$ given by Sw\_1 ; Br

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_𝐧^{}^\kappa (𝐫)=\mathrm{exp}\left(ie\mathrm{\Phi }_{𝐧,𝐧^{}}^\kappa (𝐫)\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_𝐧^\kappa (𝐫)`$ (47)
where the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{𝐧,𝐧^{}}^\kappa (𝐫)`$ satisfies

$`𝐀_𝐧^\kappa (𝐫)𝐀_𝐧^{}^\kappa (𝐫)=\mathrm{\Phi }_{𝐧,𝐧^{}}^\kappa (𝐫).`$ (48)
Let denote by $`𝐧^{}=g𝐧,g\mathrm{SO}(3)`$, the left action of the rotation group induced by $`S_𝐧^\kappa S_𝐧^{}^\kappa `$. From rotational symmetry of the theory it follows immediately that an arbitrary gauge transformation $`\mathrm{\Psi }_𝐧^\kappa \mathrm{\Psi }_𝐧^{}^\kappa `$ can be undone by rotation $`𝐫𝐫g`$. Using this fact and adopting results of Wu2 ; Jac ; Jac1  we find that an arbitrary gauge transformation $`U_g`$, producing the rotation of the string $`S_𝐧^\kappa S_𝐧^{}^\kappa `$, is given by nonintegrable phase factor,

$`U_g\mathrm{\Psi }_𝐧^\kappa (𝐫)=\mathrm{exp}(i\alpha _1^\kappa (𝐫,𝐧;g))\mathrm{\Psi }_𝐧^\kappa (𝐫),`$ (49)
$`\alpha _1(𝐫;g)=e{\displaystyle _𝐫^𝐫^{}}𝐀_𝐧^\kappa (𝝃)𝑑𝝃,𝐫^{}=𝐫g`$ (50)
where the integration is performed along the geodesic $`\widehat{𝐫𝐫^{}}S^2`$ and $`\alpha _1`$ is the so-called first cochain Jac ; Gr ; F . Actually, $`U_g`$ is an operator of the parallel transport along the geodesics on the two-dimensional sphere of the fixed radius $`r`$.

For a given cochain $`\alpha _1`$ a 2-cocycle $`\alpha _2`$ is defined by

$`\alpha _2(𝐫;g_1,g_2)=\delta \alpha _1=\alpha _1(𝐫g_1;g_2)`$
$`\alpha _1(𝐫;g_1g_2)+\alpha _1(𝐫;g_1)`$ (51)
which satisfies $`\delta \alpha _2=0`$, and, for $`\alpha _2`$ being 2-cochain, a 3-cocycle $`\alpha _3=\delta \alpha _2`$ is given by

$`\alpha _3(𝐫;g_1,g_2,g_3))=\alpha _2(𝐫g_1;g_2,g_3))\alpha _2(𝐫;g_1g_2,g_3))+`$
$`+\alpha _2(𝐫;g_1,g_2g_3))\alpha _2(𝐫;g_1,g_2).`$
Similarly one can introduce $`n`$-cocylce $`\alpha _n(𝐫;g_1,g_2,\mathrm{},g_n)`$ Gr ; F .

Following Jac ; Gr  let us define a 2-cochain, $`\alpha _2`$, by

$$\alpha _2(𝐫;g_1,g_2)=e_\mathrm{\Sigma }𝐁𝑑𝐬=e\mathrm{\Phi }|_\mathrm{\Sigma }$$
(52)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }|_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a magnetic flux through the geodesic triangle $`\mathrm{\Sigma }S^2`$ spanned by $`(𝐫,𝐫g_1,𝐫g_1g_2)`$. Since $`𝐁=\times 𝐀`$ locally, but not globally then $`\alpha _2`$ is a 2-cochain and not a 2-cocycle. Indeed, applying Stokes’ theorem we get

$`\alpha _2(𝐫;g_1,g_2)=\delta \alpha _1(𝐫;g_1,g_2)+\sigma (S_𝐧^\kappa ,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ (53)
where $`\sigma =_\mathrm{\Sigma }𝐡_𝐧^\kappa 𝑑𝐬`$ being contribution of the string is not zero if and only if the string crosses $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

For computing $`\sigma `$ let us divide $`R^3`$ into $`R_+^3`$ and $`R_{}^3`$ by the plane passing through the origin of coordinates and orthogonal to $`𝐧`$. Assuming that the string $`S_𝐧^\kappa `$ crosses $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ at a point $`p_0`$, we find

$`\sigma =`$ $`\{\begin{array}{c}4\pi (1\kappa )\mu ,p_0\mathrm{\Sigma }R_{}^3\hfill \\ 4\pi \kappa \mu ,p_0\mathrm{\Sigma }R_+^3.\hfill \end{array}`$ (56)
Since $`2\kappa \mu `$ is an integer, one has

$`\alpha _2=\delta \alpha _1+4\pi \mu |_{p_0}mod2\pi `$ (57)
Similar consideration of the gauge transformations $`S_𝐧^\kappa S_𝐧^\kappa `$, related with the reflections, yields

$`\alpha _2=\delta \alpha _1+4\pi (12\kappa )\mu =\delta \alpha _1+4\pi \mu mod2\pi .`$
Examining the composition of two operators $`U_{g_1}`$ and $`U_{g_2}`$, we find that 2-cochain $`\alpha _2`$ occurs in its composition law as follows:

$$U_{g_1}U_{g_2}\mathrm{\Psi }_𝐧^\kappa (𝐫)=\mathrm{exp}(i\alpha _2(𝐫;g_1,g_2))U_{g_1g_2}\mathrm{\Psi }_𝐧^\kappa (𝐫)$$
(58)
where $`g_1,g_2\mathrm{SO}(3)`$.

Consider now three elements $`g_1,g_2,g_3\mathrm{O}(3)`$ producing the transformations $`S_𝐧^\kappa S_{𝐧_1}^\kappa ,S_𝐧^\kappa S_{𝐧_2}^\kappa ,S_𝐧^\kappa S_{𝐧_3}^\kappa `$ respectively. Then the product of the three operators is given by

$`U_{g_1}\left(U_{g_2}U_{g_3}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_𝐧^\kappa (𝐫)=\mathrm{exp}(i\alpha _3(𝐫;g_1,g_2,g_3))\left(U_{g_1}U_{g_2}\right)U_{g_3}\mathrm{\Psi }_𝐧^\kappa (𝐫)`$
where $`\alpha _3`$ is a three cocycle

From Eqs.(52) and (57) it follows $`\alpha _3=4\pi \mu mod2\pi `$ if the monopole is enclosed by the geodesic simplex with vertices $`(𝐫,𝐫g_1,𝐫g_1g_2,𝐫g_1g_2g_3)`$ or zero otherwise Com1 .

We turn now to Eq.(58) and rewrite the product of the two transformations as

$$U_{g_1}U_{g_2}\mathrm{\Psi }_𝐧^\kappa (𝐫)=U_{\phi (g_1,g_2;𝐫)}\mathrm{\Psi }_𝐧^\kappa (𝐫)$$
(59)
where $`\phi `$ is defined by

$`\phi (g_1,g_2;𝐫)=\alpha _1^\kappa (𝐫;g_1g_2)+\alpha _2(𝐫;g_1,g_2)=`$
$`=\alpha _1(𝐫;g_1)+\alpha _1(𝐫;g_2)+\sigma (S_𝐧^\kappa ,\mathrm{\Sigma }).`$ (60)
It is easy verify that the following identity of quasiassociativity holds:

$`\phi (g_1,\phi (g_2,g_3;𝐫);𝐫)=\phi (\phi (g_1,g_2;𝐫g_3),g_3;𝐫).`$ (61)
We say that Eqs.(59)-(61) define a gauge loop. This is a special case of transformation quasigroup introduced by Batalin Bat  and a 3-cocycle, being a ‘measure’ of nonassociativity, can be related with an associator in theory of quasigroups and loops N1 ; N2 ; N3 ; Pfl ; S1 .

The gauge loop is associated also with the loop QU(1) defined as a loop of multiplication by unimodular complex numbers N1 ; N2 ; N3 :

$`\mathrm{e}^{i\alpha }\mathrm{e}^{i\beta }=\mathrm{e}^{i\alpha \beta },`$ (62)
$`\alpha \beta =\alpha +\beta +F(\alpha ,\beta ),F(\alpha ,0)=F(0,\beta )=0.`$
Before proceeding notice that QU(1) is isomorphic to the group U(1) if

$`F(\alpha ,\beta )+F(\alpha \beta ,\gamma )F(\beta ,\gamma )`$
$`F(\alpha ,\beta \gamma )=0mod2\pi ,`$ (63)
that is a 2-cocycle condition $`\delta \alpha _2=0mod2\pi `$.

Assuming QU(1) to be a local loop we define a respective gauge loop over $`S^2`$ by

$`U_{\alpha (𝐫)}\mathrm{\Psi }_𝐧^\kappa (𝐫)=\mathrm{exp}(i\alpha (𝐫))\mathrm{\Psi }_𝐧^\kappa (𝐫),`$ (64)
$`U_{\alpha (𝐫)}U_{\beta (𝐫)}\mathrm{\Psi }_𝐧^\kappa (𝐫)=U_{\alpha (𝐫)\beta (𝐫)}\mathrm{\Psi }_𝐧^\kappa (𝐫).`$ (65)
Here the operation $`\alpha (𝐫)\beta (𝐫)`$ is given by Eq.(62) with $`F(\alpha ,\beta ;𝐫)`$ determined as follows: $`F=\sigma (S_𝐧^\kappa ,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ where the geodesic triangle $`\mathrm{\Sigma }S^2`$ is spanned by $`(𝐫,𝐫g_\alpha ,𝐫g_\beta ),g_\alpha ,g_\beta \mathrm{SO}(3)`$. For computing $`g_\alpha `$ we employ the rotational symmetry of the theory. This implies that for a given string $`𝐒_𝐧^\kappa `$ and gauge function $`\alpha (𝐫)`$ the following equation holds:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_𝐧^\kappa (𝐫^{})=\mathrm{\Psi }_𝐧^{}^\kappa (𝐫)=\mathrm{exp}\left(i\alpha (𝐫)\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_𝐧^\kappa (𝐫),`$ (66)
$`𝐫^{}=𝐫g_\alpha ,𝐧^{}=g_\alpha 𝐧,g_\alpha \mathrm{SO}(3).`$
It should be considered as the equation for finding $`g_\alpha `$. Returning now to Eq. (65) we see that the local loop QU(1) becomes the gauge loop defined by Eqs. (59), (60).

## V Discussion and concluding remarks

We deduced a consistent pointlike monopole theory, with an arbitrary magnetic charge, involving nonunitary representations of the rotation group and making use of nonassociative QU(1) bundle over $`S^2`$, where QU(1) is the structure loop N1 ; N2 ; N3 . From our approach it follows a generalized quantization condition, $`2\kappa \mu `$, that can be considered as quantization of the weight string instead of the monopole charge. In particular cases $`\kappa =1`$ and $`\kappa =1/2`$ it yields the Dirac and Schwinger selectional rules respectively.

At first sight our results are in contradiction with well known topological and geometrical arguments in behalf of Dirac quantization rule Sw\_1 ; Wu1 ; G3 . For the better understanding of the problem let us notice that known proofs are based on employing unitary finite-dimensional representations of the rotation group or classical fibre bundle theory. One can remove the effect of 3-cocycle imposing the Dirac quantization condition, however, this arises only from a realization of the monopole as U(1) bundle over $`S^2`$ Wu1 ; Wu2 ; Gr . This implies that there exists the division of space into overlapping regions $`\{U_i\}`$ such that nonsingular vector potential can be defined and yields the correct monopole magnetic field in each region. On each intersection $`U_iU_j`$ can be defined the transition functions $`q_{ij}=e\mathrm{\Phi }_{𝐧_i𝐧_j}`$ such that $`U_iU_j\mathrm{U}(1)`$. On the triple overlap $`U_iU_jU_k`$ it holds

$$\mathrm{exp}(i(q_{ij}+q_{jk}+q_{ki}))=\mathrm{exp}(i4\pi \mu ),$$
(67)
and the consistency condition requires $`q_{ij}+q_{jk}+q_{ki}=0mod2\pi `$. This gives $`2\mu `$ and the Dirac quantization condition appears again, now as a necessary condition to have a consistent U(1)-bundle over $`S^2`$. Notice that it is consequence of the dynamics and not of the representation theory Gr .

While the Jacobi identity holds for the generators of the rotation group Zw\_1 ; H ; Str  the situation with the translations in the background of the monopole is quite different. The difference has a topological nature and arises from the non-trivial toplogy of the orbit space. In the case of the rotations, the orbit space is just a two-dimensional sphere $`S^2`$. For the translations the orbit space is three-dimensional space $`R^3`$ with one point removed and its non-trivial topology provides the non-vanishing three-cocycle G1 . Thus, the Jacobi identity fails for the gauge invariant algebra of translations and for the finite translations $`\{U_𝐚\}`$ one has Jac ; Gr

$`\left(U_𝐚U_𝐛\right)U_𝐜\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)=\mathrm{exp}(i\alpha _3(𝐫;𝐚,𝐛,𝐜))U_𝐚\left(U_𝐛U_𝐜\right)\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫).`$ (68)
For the Dirac quantization condition being satisfied one has $`\alpha _3=0mod2\pi `$, and (68) provides an associative representation of the translations, in spite of the fact that the Jacobi identity continues to fail.

Since a conventional quantum mechanics deals with linear Hilbert space operators, the Dirac quantization rule is a necessary condition for the consistency of quantum mechanics in the presence of a monopole. Avoiding this condition forces us to go beyond the standard quantum mechanical approach and introduce a nonassociative algebra of observables Jac ; Gr ; Gr1 ; G1 ; G2 . Notice that in ordinary quantum mechanics the Schrödinger and Heisenberg pictures are equivalent, but the same is not true in a nonassociative quantum mechanics. Indeed, whilst the concept of the Hilbert space failed for nonassociative algebras, the Heisenberg approach could be still realized Adl ; OK ; K . In a possible nonassociative quantum mechanics one must give up a conventional description of the quantum mechanics provided by Hilbert space concept and look for the generalization based on the Heisenberg approach and maybe only in terms of density matrix G2 ; OK ; K .