text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In my talk at the Yamagata conference on “Algebraic Combinatorics and Related Topics” (November 1997) I discussed two problems, (a) finding packings in Grassmannian manifolds, and (b) constructing error-correcting codes for quantum computation, and tried to show how our purely numerical investigations into the first problem had led to theoretical advances in both subjects. This work has been presented in a series of papers, , , , , . In the present paper I will give a brief introduction to our work on the first problem, referring the reader to the above references for further information.

For a long time I have been interested in various kinds of packing problems: packings in Hamming space (i.e. error-correcting codes ), in Euclidean space (i.e. the sphere-packing problem ), or on the sphere (i.e. spherical codes \[14, Chap. 3\], , ). R. H. Hardin and I have had some success in using numerical optimization techniques to search for spherical codes and other kinds of geometrical designs. This work is described in the papers , , , , ,  (others are in preparation). Figure 1 (on the next page) shows an example that arose from our search for good coverings, i.e. sets of points with small covering radius. The figure shows 48002 points on the sphere with average angular separation of about 1 degree (the minimal angular separation is .802 degrees, the maximal angle is 1.077, the average angle is .99948 and the standard deviation is .047).

A few years ago, a statistician, Dianne Cook, asked if we could apply the same techniques to find packings of (say) 48 planes in 4-dimensional Euclidean space $`R^4`$. More generally, for given values of $`N`$, $`n`$ and $`m`$, how should one arrange $`N`$ $`n`$-dimensional subspaces of $`R^m`$ (all passing through the origin) so that they are as far apart as possible?

The rest of the paper will describe what happened when we tried to attack this problem.

## 2 Packings in Grassmannian Space

The Grassmannian space $`G(m,n)`$ is the set of all $`n`$-dimensional subspaces of real Euclidean $`m`$-dimensional space $`R^m`$. This is a homogeneous space isomorphic to $`O(m)/(O(n)\times O(mn))`$, and forms a compact Riemannian manifold of dimension $`n(mn)`$.

Before we can investigate packings in this space, we must decide how to measure the distance between two $`n`$-spaces $`P`$, $`QG(m,n)`$. The principal angles $`\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _n[0,\pi /2]`$ between $`P`$ and $`Q`$ are defined by (we follow , p. 584)

$$\mathrm{cos}\theta _i=\underset{uP}{\mathrm{max}}\underset{vQ}{\mathrm{max}}uv=u_iv_i,$$

for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$, subject to $`uu=vv=1`$, $`uu_j=0`$, $`vv_j=0`$ $`(1ji1)`$. The vectors $`\{u_i\}`$ and $`\{v_j\}`$ are principal vectors corresponding to the pair $`P`$ and $`Q`$.

Wong  shows that the geodesic distance on $`G(m,n)`$ between $`P`$ and $`Q`$ is111The geodesic distance is unique except for the single case of $`G(4,2)`$.

$$d_g(P,Q)=\sqrt{\theta _1^2+\mathrm{}+\theta _n^2}.$$
(1)
However, this definition has one drawback: it is not everywhere differentiable. Consider the case $`n=1`$, for example, and hold one line $`P`$ fixed while rotating another line $`Q`$ (both passing through the origin). As the angle $`\varphi `$ between $`P`$ and $`Q`$ increases from 0 to $`\pi `$, the principal angle $`\theta _1`$ increases from 0 to $`\pi /2`$ and then falls to 0, and is non-differentiable at $`\pi /2`$ (see Fig. 2).

Although one might expect this non-differentiability to be a mere technicality, it does in fact cause considerable difficulties for our optimizer, especially in higher dimensions in cases when many distances fall in the neighborhood of singular points of $`d_g`$.

An alternative measure of distance, which we call the chordal distance, is given by

$$d_c(P,Q)=\sqrt{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1+\mathrm{}+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _n}.$$
(2)
The reason for the name will be revealed later. This approximates the geodesic distance when the subspaces are close, has the property that its square is differentiable everywhere, and, as we shall attempt to demonstrate, has a number of other desirable features.

A third definition has been used by Asimov  and Golub and Van Loan , p. 584, namely

$$d_m(P,Q)=\underset{i=1,\mathrm{},n}{\mathrm{max}}\theta _i.$$

This shares the vices of the geodesic distance.

Of course for $`n=1`$ all three definitions are equivalent, in the sense that they lead to the same optimal packings.

We can now state the packing problem: given $`N,n,m`$, find a set of $`n`$-spaces $`P_1,\mathrm{},P_NG(m,n)`$ so that $`\underset{ij}{\mathrm{min}}d(P_i,P_j)`$ is as large as possible, where $`d`$ is either geodesic or chordal distance. Since $`G(m,n)`$ is compact, the problem is well-defined. Because $`G(m,n)`$ and $`G(m,mn)`$ are essentially the same space, we may assume $`nm/2`$.

We also need some further terminology. A generator matrix for an $`n`$-space $`PG(m,n)`$ is an $`n\times m`$ matrix whose rows span $`P`$. The orthogonal group $`O(m)`$ acts on $`G(m,n)`$ by right multiplication of generator matrices. The automorphism group of a subset $`\{P_1,\mathrm{},P_N\}G(m,n)`$ is the subset of $`O(m)`$ which fixes or permutes these planes.

By applying a suitable element of $`O(m)`$ and choosing appropriate basis vectors for the spaces, any given pair of $`n`$-spaces $`P,Q`$ with $`nm/2`$ can be assumed to have generator matrices

$$\left[\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}1& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& 1& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ & & \mathrm{}& & & & \mathrm{}& & & \mathrm{}& \\ 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 1& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\end{array}\right]$$
(3)
and

$$\left[\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}\mathrm{cos}\theta _1& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& \mathrm{sin}\theta _1& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{cos}\theta _2& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& \mathrm{sin}\theta _2& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ & & \mathrm{}& & & & \mathrm{}& & & \mathrm{}& \\ 0& 0& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{cos}\theta _n& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{sin}\theta _n& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\end{array}\right]$$
(4)
respectively, where $`\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _n`$ are the principal angles (, Theorem 2).

## 3 Packing lines in $`R^m`$

The next step was to apply a suitably modified version of our optimizer in order to find a collection of good packings. The basic algorithm is described in  and we shall not say much about it here. We had to overcome various obstacles caused by the nondifferentiability of the geodesic distance. Whereas we could compute partial derivatives of the chordal distance analytically, for the geodesic distance we used numerical differentiation.

Our initial computations concerned packings in $`G(m,1)`$; that is, packings of lines through the origin in $`R^m`$, or equivalently the problem of packing points on the sphere in $`R^m`$ so that if $`P`$ is a point in the packing, so is $`P`$. Such sets of points form antipodal spherical codes. This is a classical problem, of course, that is the subject of many papers. The 3-dimensional problem is discussed for example in , , , , , , , .

Nevertheless we were able to find many packings that were better than those previously known, even in three dimensions. We refer the reader to ,  for the details. Here we will just give one table, showing the minimal angle $`\theta _1`$ of the best packing we have found of $`N`$ lines, and for comparison the minimal angle $`\theta _1^{}`$ of the best packing known of $`2N`$ points on $`S^2`$ (taken from ). We see that requiring a packing of $`2N`$ points on $`S^2`$ to be antipodal is a definite handicap: only in the cases of 6 and 12 points do the antipodal and unrestricted packings coincide. Decimals in the tables have been rounded to four decimal places.

The last two columns of the table specify the largest automorphism group222That is, the subgroup of $`O(3)`$ that fixes or permutes the $`2N`$ points. we have found of any such best antipodal packing of $`2N`$ points. The fourth column gives the order of the group and its name both in the orbifold notation (cf. ) and as the double cover of a rotation group. The symbol $`\pm 𝒢`$ indicates that the group consists of the matrices $`\pm M`$ for $`M𝒢`$, where $`𝒢`$ is a cyclic $`(𝒞)`$, dihedral $`(𝒟)`$, tetrahedral $`(𝒯)`$, octahedral $`(𝒪)`$ or icosahedral $`()`$ group. In each case the subscript gives the order of the rotation group. In some cases the best packings can be obtained by taking the diameters of a known polyhedron, and if so this is indicated in the final column of the table.

The entries for $`N6`$ were shown to be optimal by Fejes Tóth in 1965  (see also Rosenfeld ), and the 7-line arrangement will be proved optimal in Section 5. The solutions for $`N8`$ are the best found with over 15000 random starts with our optimizer. There is no guarantee that these are optimal, but experience with similar problems suggests that they will be hard to beat and in any case will be not far from optimal.

For $`N=1,2,3,6`$ the solutions are known to be unique, for $`N=4`$ there are precisely two solutions (, , ), and for $`N=5,7,8`$ the solutions appear to be unique. For larger values of $`N`$, however, the solutions are often not unique. For $`N=9`$ there are two different solutions, and in the range $`N30`$ the solutions for 10, 22, 25, 27, 29 lines (and possibly others) contain lines that “rattle”, that is, lines which can be moved freely over a small range of angles without affecting the minimal angle. The table only goes as far as $`N=28`$ lines. For more a extensive table in $`G(3,1)`$ and for tables of packings in $`G(m,1)`$ for $`m>3`$, see .

## 4 Packing planes in $`R^4`$

We were naturally very interested to see what would happen when we studied packings in $`G(4,2)`$, that is, packings of planes in $`R^4`$. Here for the first time we felt we were sailing in waters where no one had been before. (Of course, as already mentioned in Section 2, we expected that $`G(4,2)`$ would be special.)

Using our optimizer, we looked for the best packings we could find of $`N`$ planes in $`R^4`$ (i.e. $`N`$ points in $`G(4,2))`$, for values of $`N`$ up to about 50.

The coordinates of the planes as found by the computer are with respect to a random coordinate frame, and so must be “beautified” by hand. Initially they look like this

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 0.4909573575989161& \hfill 0.5698930951299707& \hfill 0.6378400314190236& \hfill 0.1653566674254520\\ \hfill 0.7841182881275834& \hfill 0.0542768735416466& \hfill 0.4433546762436948& \hfill 0.4308702383261817\\ \hfill 0.0989775328964588& \hfill 0.2213935599532070& \hfill 0.9654594563867928& \hfill 0.0952700250146647\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\end{array}$$

That is, they have no obvious structure. The reason they are called “planes” is that they are indeed “plain” (at this point I held up a sheet of perfectly blank white paper; the audience laughed). The fun comes in trying to understand the computer output.

For $`N=2`$ planes, the best packings for both definitions of distance are the same: take two orthogonal planes, say

$$\begin{array}{cccc}+\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & +\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\mathrm{and}\begin{array}{cccc}0\hfill & 0\hfill & +\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & +\hfill \end{array},$$

with principal angles $`\pi /2`$, so that $`\pi /2`$, $`d_c^2=2`$, $`d_g^2=\pi ^2/2`$. (We abbreviate $`+1`$ and $`1`$ by $`+`$ and $``$ respectively.)

For $`N=3`$ planes there are different answers for the two distances. For the geodesic distance the best packing consists (for example) of the planes

$$\begin{array}{cccc}+\hfill & \hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & +\hfill \end{array},\begin{array}{cccc}+\hfill & 0\hfill & \hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & +\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array},\begin{array}{cccc}+\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & \hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & +\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array},$$

and has $`d_g^2=5\pi ^2/18`$, $`d_c^2=1.25`$. For chordal distance the best packing consists (for example) of the planes

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill r& \hfill .5\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill .5& \hfill r\end{array},\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill r& \hfill .5\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill .5& \hfill r\end{array},\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 0\end{array},$$

and has $`d_c^2=1.5`$, $`d_g^2=2\pi ^2/9`$. A more geometrical description of these two arrangements will be given below.

I postpone discussion of $`N=4`$ and 5, and consider $`N=6`$ next. Here the same arrangement appeared to be optimal for both distances. In this packing the principal angles between any two of the six planes are $`\pi /2`$ and $`\mathrm{arccos}2/\sqrt{5}`$, so the 6 planes lie at the vertices of a regular simplex in $`G(4,2)`$. This suggested that the arrangement should somehow be related to the icosahedron, since the angles between any two of the six diameters of the icosahedron are equal (i.e. these six diameters form a regular simplex in $`G(3,1)`$). We soon realized that there is a classical theorem which explains this, and gives a simple way of describing $`G(4,2)`$.

We remind the reader that any element $`\alpha `$ of $`SO(4)`$ may be represented as

$$\alpha :x\overline{\mathrm{}}xr,$$

where $`x=x_0+x_1i+x_2j+x_3k`$ represents a point on $`S^3`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$, $`r`$ are unit quaternions . The pair $`\mathrm{}`$, $`r`$ represent the same $`\alpha `$. The correspondence between $`\alpha `$ and $`\pm (\mathrm{},r)`$ is one-to-one.

Given a plane $`PG(4,2)`$, let $`\alpha `$ be the element of $`SO(4)`$ that fixes $`P`$ and negates the points of the orthogonal plane $`P^{}`$. Then $`\alpha ^2=1`$, and for this $`\alpha `$, it is easy to see that $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}_1i+\mathrm{}_2j+\mathrm{}_3k`$ and $`r=r_1i+r_2j+r_3k`$ are purely imaginary unit quaternions. This establishes the following result (which can be found for example in Leichtweiss ).

###### Theorem 1

A plane $`PG(4,2)`$ is represented by a pair $`(\mathrm{},r)S^2\times S^2`$, with $`(\mathrm{},r)`$ representing the same plane.

Given two planes $`P,QG(4,2)`$, represented by $`\pm (\mathrm{},r)`$, $`\pm (\mathrm{}^{},r^{})`$, respectively, the principal angles $`\theta _1`$, $`\theta _2`$ between them may be found as follows. Let $`\varphi `$ (resp. $`\psi `$) be the angle between $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mathrm{}^{}`$ (resp. $`r`$ and $`r^{}`$), with $`0\varphi ,\psi \pi `$. If $`\varphi +\psi >\pi `$, replace $`\varphi `$ by $`\pi \varphi `$ and $`\psi `$ by $`\pi \psi `$, so that $`0\varphi +\psi \pi `$, with $`\varphi \psi `$ (say). Then

$$\theta _1,\theta _2=\frac{\psi \pm \varphi }{2},d_g^2(P,Q)=\frac{\psi ^2+\varphi ^2}{2},d_c^2(P,Q)=1\mathrm{cos}\psi \mathrm{cos}\varphi .$$

A set $`S=\{P_1,\mathrm{},P_N\}G(4,2)`$ is thus represented by a “binocular code” consisting of a set of pairs $`\pm (\mathrm{}_i,r_i)S^2\times S^2`$. We call the list of $`2N`$ points $`\pm \mathrm{}_i`$ (they need not be distinct) the “left code” corresponding to $`S`$, and the points $`\pm r_i`$ the “right code”. Conversely, given two multisets $`LS^2`$, $`RS^2`$, each of size $`2N`$ and closed under negation, and a bijection or “matching” $`f`$ between them that satisfies $`f(\mathrm{})=f(\mathrm{})`$, $`\mathrm{}L`$, we obtain a set of $`N`$ planes in $`G(4,2)`$.

The binocular codes for the $`d_c`$-optimal packings of $`N=2,\mathrm{},6`$ planes are shown in Figs. 3, 4. Except for $`N=3`$, the left and right codes are identical. Matching points from the left and right codes are labeled with the same symbol. For $`N5`$ the points lie in the equatorial plane, and for $`N4`$ there are repeated points. The points lie on regular figures, except for $`N=4`$ where the points are $`\pm (1,0,0)`$, $`\pm (\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}},\pm \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}},0)`$.

For $`N=6`$ the left and right codes consist of the 12 vertices of an icosahedron (Fig. 4). Let these be the points

$$\lambda (0,\pm 1,\pm \tau ),\lambda (\pm \tau ,0,\pm 1),\lambda (\pm 1,\pm \tau ,0),$$

where $`\lambda =1/\sqrt{\tau +2}`$. The matching is obtained by mapping each point to its algebraic conjugate (i.e. replacing $`\sqrt{5}`$ by $`\sqrt{5}`$), and rescaling so the points again lie on a unit sphere. As already mentioned, the principal angles between each pair of these planes are $`\mathrm{arcsin}1/\sqrt{5}`$ and $`\pi /2`$, so $`d_c^2=6/5`$, $`d_g^2=2.6824`$.

Here is another very nice packing, also found by the algorithm: for 18 planes in $`R^4`$, use the binocular code consisting of the pairs $`(l,r)`$, where $`l`$ and $`r`$ range over the vertices of a regular octahedron. This has $`d_c^2=1`$ (which is optimal, by the Corollary below) and $`d_g^2=\pi ^2/8`$ (not optimal).

Table 2 gives the values of $`d_c^2`$ for the best packings we have found of $`N50`$ planes in $`R^4`$.

Many of the other entries in Table 2 are also very beautiful: see . On the other hand, with the exception of small values of $`N`$ (6, for example), the best packings with respect to the geodesic distance are much uglier. That is, the packings are less symmetric, i.e. the orders of the automorphism groups of the best geodesic packings are almost always small, whereas those of the best chordal-distance packings are occasionally quite large (we will see an example in the next section).

## 5 Packing $`n`$-spaces in $`R^n`$

We also applied our algorithm to look for examples of packings in $`R(m,n)`$, and amassed a large number of examples. In looking for an analogue of Theorem 1 we collected the following pieces of evidence:

(i) There is a packing of 10 planes in $`R^4`$ that forms a regular simplex.

(ii) The 18-plane packing described in the previous section has the structure of a regular orthoplex (a generalized octahedron, or cross-polytope).

(iii) We wrote a computer program to determine the lowest dimensions into which our library of packings in $`G(m,n)`$ could be isometrically embedded. More precisely, for a given set of $`N`$ points in $`G(m,n)`$, we searched for the smallest dimension $`D`$ such that there are $`N`$ points in $`R^D`$ whose Euclidean distances coincide with the chordal distances between the points.

The results were a surprise: it appeared that $`G(m,n)`$ with chordal distance could be isometrically embedded into $`R^D`$, for $`D=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m+1}{2}\right)1`$, independent of $`n`$. Furthermore the points representing elements of $`G(m,n)`$ were observed to lie on a sphere of radius $`\sqrt{n(mn)/2m}`$ in $`R^D`$.

These three facts, and a number of other pieces of evidence mentioned in , led us to the main theorem of that paper. The key idea is simply to associate to each $`PG(m,n)`$ the orthogonal projection map from $`R^m`$ to $`P`$. If $`A`$ is a generator matrix for $`P`$ whose rows are orthogonal unit vectors, then the projection is represented by the matrix

$$𝒫=A^{tr}A.$$
(5)
$`𝒫`$ is an $`m\times m`$ symmetric idempotent matrix, which is independent of the particular orthonormal generator matrix used to define it. Changing to a different coordinate frame in $`R^m`$ has the effect of conjugating $`𝒫`$ by an element of $`O(m)`$. With the help of (3), we see that

$$\mathrm{trace}𝒫=n.$$

Thus $`𝒫`$ lies in a space of dimension $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m+1}{2}\right)1`$.

Let $``$ denote the $`L_2`$-norm of a matrix: if $`M=(M_{ij})`$, $`1i,jm`$,

$$M=\sqrt{\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}M_{ij}^2}=\sqrt{\mathrm{trace}M^{tr}M}.$$

For $`P,QG(m,n)`$, with orthonormal generator matrices $`A`$, $`B`$, and principal angles $`\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _n`$, an elementary calculation using (3), (4) shows that

$`d_c^2(P,Q)`$ $`=`$ $`n(\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _1+\mathrm{}+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _n)`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`n\mathrm{trace}A^{tr}AB^{tr}B`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝒫𝒬^2,`$
where $`𝒫`$, $`𝒬`$ are the corresponding projection matrices.

Note that if we define the “de-traced” matrix $`\overline{𝒫}=𝒫\frac{n}{m}I_m`$, then $`\mathrm{trace}\overline{𝒫}=0`$, and $`\overline{𝒫}^2=\frac{n(mn)}{n}`$. We have thus established the following theorem.

###### Theorem 2

The representation of $`n`$-spaces $`PG(m,n)`$ by their projection matrices $`\overline{𝒫}`$ gives an isometric embedding of $`G(m,n)`$ into a sphere of radius $`\sqrt{n(mn)/n}`$ in $`R^D`$, $`D=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m+1}{2}\right)1`$, with $`d_c(P,Q)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\overline{𝒫}\overline{𝒬}`$.

Thus chordal distance between spaces is $`1/\sqrt{2}`$ times the straight-line distance between the projection matrices (which explains our name for this metric). The geodesic distance between the spaces is $`1/\sqrt{2}`$ times the geodesic distance between the projection matrices measured along the sphere in $`R^D`$.

Incidentally the Plücker embedding, in which members of $`G(m,n)`$ are represented by points in projective space of dimension $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{n}\right)1`$, does not give a way to realize either $`d_c`$ or $`d_g`$ as Euclidean distance. Note also that the dimension of the Plücker embedding is in general much larger than the dimension of our embedding.

Since we have embedded $`G(m,n)`$ into a sphere of radius $`\sqrt{n(mn)/m}`$ in $`R^D`$, we can apply the Rankin bounds for spherical codes , and deduce:

### Corollary.

(i) The simplex bound: for a packing of $`N`$ $`n`$-spaces in $`R^m`$,

$$d_c^2\frac{n(mn)}{m}\frac{N}{N1}.$$
(7)
Equality requires $`ND+1=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m+1}{2}\right)`$, and occurs if and only if the $`N`$ points in $`R^D`$ corresponding to the $`n`$-spaces form a regular ‘equatorial’ simplex.

(ii) The orthoplex bound: for $`N>\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m+1}{2}\right)`$,

$$d_c^2\frac{n(mn)}{m}.$$
(8)
Equality requires $`N2D=(m1)(m+2)`$, and occurs if the $`N`$ points form a subset of the $`2D`$ vertices of a regular orthoplex. If $`N=2D`$ this condition is also necessary.

The corollary allows us to establish the optimality of hundreds of our packings.

The case of subspaces of dimension $`n`$ in $`R^{2n}`$ or $`R^{2n+1}`$ is especially interesting. The largest possible arrangements of subspaces that could achieve the two bounds are:

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}m& n& \multicolumn{2}{c}{N(\mathrm{simplex})}& \multicolumn{2}{c}{N(\mathrm{orthoplex})}\\ \hfill 2& \hfill 1& \hfill 3& \hfill & \hfill 4& \hfill \\ \hfill 3& \hfill 1& \hfill 6& \hfill & \hfill 10& \\ \hfill 4& \hfill 2& \hfill 10& \hfill & \hfill 18& \hfill \\ \hfill 5& \hfill 2& \hfill 15& & \hfill 28& \\ \hfill 6& \hfill 3& \hfill 21& & \hfill 40& \\ \hfill 7& \hfill 3& \hfill 28& \hfill & \hfill 54& \\ \hfill 8& \hfill 4& \hfill 36& & \hfill 70& \hfill \\ \hfill & \hfill & \hfill & & \hfill & \end{array}$$
(9)
Checks indicate that such a packing exists. It is known that the orthoplex bound cannot be achieved by 10 lines in $`G(3,1)`$, while the other cases are undecided. Our computer experiments strongly suggest that no set of 15 planes meets the simplex bound in $`G(5,2)`$.

### 70 4-spaces in $`R^8`$.

On the other hand, it is possible to find packings of 70 points in $`G(8,4)`$ meeting the bound (8). With a considerable amount of effort we determined several examples, of which the following is the most symmetrical. Let the coordinates be labeled $`\mathrm{},0,1,\mathrm{},6`$, and take two 4-spaces generated by the vectors

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\{10000000,\hfill & 01000000,\hfill & 00100000,\hfill & 00001000\}\hfill \\ \{11000000,\hfill & 00101000,\hfill & 00010001,\hfill & 00000110\}\hfill \end{array},$$
(10)
respectively. We obtain 70 4-spaces from these by negating any even number of coordinates, and/or applying the permutations $`(0123456)`$, $`(\mathrm{}0)(16)(23)(45)`$ and $`(124)(365)`$. The principal angles are $`0,0,\frac{\pi }{2},\frac{\pi }{2}`$; $`\frac{\pi }{4},\frac{\pi }{4},\frac{\pi }{4},\frac{\pi }{4}`$; or $`\frac{\pi }{2},\frac{\pi }{2},\frac{\pi }{2},\frac{\pi }{2}`$, so $`d_c^2=2`$, $`d_g^2=\pi ^2/4`$ (this is not even a local optimum with respect to geodesic distance).

In fact, the automorphism group $`G`$ of this packing acts transitively on the 70 subspaces, so we can obtain the packing by taking (say) the first of the spaces in (10) and letting the group act. The group has structure $`2^8𝒜_8`$ and order 5160960 (where $`𝒜_8`$ is the alternating group of order 8).

## 6 The Miraculous Enters

A few weeks after that packing was discovered, my colleague Peter Shor, who was studying fault-tolerant quantum computation, asked me about the best way to investigate a certain group of $`8\times 8`$ orthogonal matrices. I replied by citing the computer algebra system MAGMA , , , and gave as an illustration the MAGMA commands needed to specify the group $`G`$ of the packing of 70 4-spaces in $`R^8`$. To our astonishment the two groups turned out (apart from a minor re-ordering of the coordinates) to be identical (not just isomorphic)!

We then discovered that this group was a member of an infinite family of groups that played a central role in a joint paper  written by another colleague, A. R. Calderbank. This is a certain family of Clifford groups (the name is due to Wall , , ), which may be constructed as follows.

The starting point is the standard method of associating a finite orthogonal space to an extraspecial 2-group, as described for example in , Theorem 23.10, or , Theorem 13.8. The end result will be the construction of various packings of $`n`$-spaces in a parent space $`V=R^m`$, where $`m=2^i`$. As basis vectors for $`V`$ we use $`e_u`$, $`uU=F_2^^i`$. The constructions will involve certain subgroups of the real orthogonal group $`𝒪=O(V,R)`$.

For $`a,bU`$ we define transformations $`X(a)𝒪`$, $`Y(b)𝒪`$ by

$$X(a):e_ue_{u+a},Y(b):e_u(1)^{bu}e_u,uU,$$

where the dot indicates the usual inner product in $`U`$. Then $`X=X(a):aU`$, $`Y=Y(b):bU`$ are elementary abelian subgroups of $`𝒪`$ of order $`2^i`$, and $`E=X,Y𝒪`$ is an extraspecial 2-group333footnotetext: , p. 349 of order $`2^{2i+1}`$ (, Lemma 2.1). The elements of $`E`$ have the form $`\pm X(a)Y(b)`$, $`a,bU`$, and satisfy

$$Y(b)X(a)=(1)^{ab}X(a)Y(b),$$

$$(1)^sX(a)Y(b)(1)^s^{}X(a^{})Y(b^{})=(1)^{a^{}b+s+s^{}}X(a+a^{})Y(b+b^{}).$$

The center $`\mathrm{\Xi }(E)`$ of $`E`$ is $`\{\pm I\}`$, and $`\overline{E}=E/\mathrm{\Xi }(E)`$ is an elementary abelian group of order $`2^{2i}`$ whose elements can be denoted by $`\overline{X}(a)\overline{Y}(b)`$, $`a,bU`$, where we are using the bar $`\overline{}`$ for images under the homomorphism from $`E`$ to $`\overline{E}`$. As in , Theorem 23.10 we define a quadratic form $`Q:\overline{E}F_2`$ by

$$Q(\overline{g})=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{if }g^2=+I\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{if }g^2=I\hfill \end{array}$$

for $`\overline{g}\overline{E}`$, where $`gE`$ is any preimage of $`\overline{g}`$, and so $`Q(\overline{X}(a)\overline{Y}(b))=ab`$.

The associated alternating bilinear form $`B:\overline{E}\times \overline{E}F_2`$ is given by

$$B(\overline{g}_1,\overline{g}_2)=Q(\overline{g}_1+\overline{g}_2)+Q(\overline{g}_1)+Q(\overline{g}_2),$$

for $`\overline{g}_1,\overline{g}_2\overline{E}`$, and so

$$B(\overline{X}(a)\overline{Y}(b),\overline{X}(a^{})\overline{Y}(b^{}))=ab^{}+a^{}b.$$
(11)
Then $`(\overline{E},Q)`$ is an orthogonal vector space of type $`\mathrm{\Omega }^+(2i,2)`$ and maximal Witt index (cf. ).

The Clifford group $`L`$ that we need is the normalizer of $`E`$ in $`𝒪`$. This has order

$$2^{i^2+i+2}(2^i1)\mathrm{\Pi }_{j=1}^{i1}(4^j1)$$

(cf. , Section 2). For $`i=3`$ the order is 5160960: this is the group mentioned at the end of the last section. $`L`$ is generated by $`E`$, all permutation matrices $`G(A,a)𝒪:e_ue_{Au+a}`$, $`uU`$, where $`A`$ is an invertible $`i\times i`$ matrix over $`F_2`$ and $`aU`$, and the further matrix $`H=(H_{u,v})`$, $`H_{u,v}=2^{i/2}(1)^{uv}`$, $`u,vU`$.

The group $`L`$ acts on $`E`$ by conjugation, fixing the center, and so also acts on $`\overline{E}`$. In fact $`L`$ acts on $`\overline{E}`$ as the orthogonal group $`O^+(2i,2)`$ (, Lemma 2.14).

This Clifford group $`L`$ has arisen in several different contexts, providing a link between the the problem of packing in Grassmannian spaces, the Barnes-Wall lattices (see , , , ), the construction of orthogonal spreads and Kerdock sets , and the construction of quantum error-correcting codes , . It also occurs in several purely group-theoretic contexts – see  for references.

The connection with quantum computing arises because if certain conditions are satisfied the invariant subspaces mentioned in Theorem 1 form good quantum-error-correcting codes , .

## 7 The construction from totally singular subspaces

We give one theorem, taken from , to illustrate how the Clifford group may be used to construct packings in Grassmannian spaces.

A subspace $`\overline{S}\overline{E}`$ is totally singular if $`Q(\overline{g})=0`$ for all $`\overline{g}\overline{S}`$. Then $`dim\overline{S}i`$, and if $`dim\overline{S}=i`$ then $`\overline{S}`$ is maximally totally singular. It follows from (11) that the preimage $`TE`$ of a maximally totally singular space $`\overline{T}`$ is an abelian subgroup of $`E`$, of order $`2^{i+1}`$. $`T`$ contains $`I`$, and has $`2^{i+1}`$ linear characters, associated with $`2^i`$ mutually perpendicular 1-dimensional invariant subspaces forming a coordinate frame $`(T)V`$ (, Lemma 3.3).

Since $`L`$ acts as $`O^+(2i,2)`$ on $`\overline{E}`$, $`L`$ takes any ordered pair of maximally totally singular subspaces that meet in $`\{0\}`$ to $`X`$ and $`Y`$ respectively. The corresponding coordinate frames in $`V`$ are

$$(X)=\{e_v^{}=\frac{1}{2^{i/2}}\underset{uU}{}(1)^{uv}e_u:vU\}$$
(12)
and

$$(Y)=\{e_u:uU\},$$
(13)
respectively.

If $`\overline{S}\overline{T}`$ has dimension $`k`$, its preimage $`SE`$ has $`2^{k+1}`$ linear characters, and $`2^k`$ distinct invariant subspaces, each of which is spanned by $`2^{ik}`$ of the vectors in $`(T)`$.

The following theorem produces many good Grassmannian packings. For the proof see .

###### Theorem 3

Given $`k`$, with $`0ki1`$, the set of all invariant subspaces of the preimages $`S`$ of all $`(ik)`$-dimensional totally singular subspaces $`\overline{S}`$ of $`\overline{E}`$ is a packing of $`N`$ planes in $`G(2^i,2^k)`$ with minimal distance $`d=2^{(k1)/2}`$, where

$$N=2^{ik}\left[\begin{array}{c}i\hfill \\ k\hfill \end{array}\right]\underset{j=k}{\overset{i1}{}}(2^j+1),$$

and

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}i\hfill \\ k\hfill \end{array}\right]=\frac{(2^i1)\mathrm{}(2^{ik+1}1)}{(2^k1)\mathrm{}(21)}$$

is a Gaussian binomial coefficient.

### Examples.

Taking $`k=0`$ in the theorem we obtain a packing of

$$(2+2)(2^2+2)\mathrm{}(2^i+2)$$

lines in $`G(2^i,1)`$ with minimal angle $`\pi /4`$ (as in ). These are the lines defined by the minimal vectors in the $`2^i`$-dimensional Barnes-Wall lattice together with their images under $`H`$ (cf. , p. 151).

With $`i=2,k=1`$ and $`i=3,k=2`$ we obtain two important special cases: 18 points in $`G(4,2)`$ and 70 points in $`G(8,4)`$. More generally, when $`k=i1`$ we obtain the packing of

$$f(i)=2(2^i1)(2^{i1}+1)$$

points in $`G(2^i,2^{i1})`$ with $`d^2=2^{i2}`$ that is the main result of . These packings meet the orthoplex bound of (8) and are therefore optimal. An explicit recursive construction for the special case $`k=i1`$ is given in .

For $`k=1`$ and $`k=i2`$ we obtain two further sequences of packings whose existence was conjectured in .

The construction given in the theorem can be restated in an equivalent but more explicit way as follows. Let $`P_0`$ be the $`2^k`$-dimensional space spanned by the coordinate vectors $`e_u`$, where $`uU`$ is of the form $`00\mathrm{}0\mathrm{}`$, with $`ik`$ initial zeros. Then the packing consists of all the images of $`P_0`$ under the group $`L`$.

The paper  also contains many other Grassmannian packings.

Space does not permit any discussion of the application of the Clifford group to construct quantum error correcting codes: for this see .

We conclude by mentioning the present status of the existence of the packings listed in Eq. (9). No packing of 10 points in $`G(3,1)`$ meeting the orthoplex bound can exist, and we conjecture no packing of 15 points in $`G(5,2)`$ meeting the simplex bound can exist. We have found an infinite family of packings of $`p(p+1)/2`$ points in $`G(p,(p1)/2)`$ meeting the simplex bound, generalizing the packing of 28 points in $`G(7,3)`$ . As mentioned above, we have also found an infinite family of packings of $`m^2+m2`$ points in $`G(2^m,2^{m1})`$ meeting the orthoplex bound, generalizing the packings of 18 points in $`G(4,2)`$ and 80 points in $`G(8,4)`$. We would very much like to know if packings of 21 or 40 points in $`G(6,3)`$, 54 points in $`G(7,3)`$ or 36 points in $`G(8,4)`$ meeting the bounds exist.

### Acknowledgements.

I should like to express my thanks to my coauthors (Rob Calderbank, John Conway, Ron Hardin, Eric Rains and Peter Shor) of the papers to which this article serves as introduction.


format: text

text:
# Spin & Statistics in Nonrelativistic Quantum Mechanics, I

## 1 Introduction

The best-known derivations of Pauli’s spin-statistics connection (which will, as usual, be called “the” spin-statistics connection in what follows) have been found in quantum field theory, where various proofs of increasing generality have been given over the decades. Fierz and Pauli  treated free fields, and Lüders, Zumino, and Burgoyne  considered finite-component general Wightman fields in 1+3 spacetime dimensions (see also ). Similar results were obtained in the setting of algebraic quantum field theory in 1+3 dimensions for both localizable charges (Thm. 6.4 in ) and topological charges .

Recently it has been found that for massive single-particle states of quantum field theories, the spin-statistics connection can be derived from the Unruh effect  (cf. also ) or from a special form of PCT-symmetry , which follows from the Unruh effect by an argument given in . Using an argument given in , one can further improve the result of : the homogeneous part of the symmetry group does not need to be the universal covering of the restricted Lorentz group; it suffices to have the universal covering of the rotation group as symmetry group . The strategy used in  has also led to spin-statistics theorems for anyons and plektons in two spatial dimensions , conformal fields , and quantum fields on curved spacetimes .

Another approach to the spin-statistics connection is purely classical (, cf. also ). It provides an illustration of some crucial steps in the quantum field theory proofs (cf. also the remarks made in ) rather than a derivation from first principles.

There have also been attempts to derive the spin-statistics connection in the setting of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics. But all arguments suggested so far turned out to be based on too restrictive assumptions, or they have been falsified by counterexamples (cf. the discussions and references in ). It has been shown in  that this also holds for the recent attempt by Berry and Robbins .

It is well known that quantum mechanics as such admits – like quantum field theory, see  – systems violating the spin-statistics connection: the easiest examples are spinless fermions, i.e., single-component wavefunctions that are antisymmetric under particle exchange, also counterexamples with nonzero spin are easy to find, and their second quantization is straightforward as well (see, e.g., ). Each derivation of the spin-statistics connection must rely on some additional assumption ruling out these counterexamples.

In this Letter, we consider nonrelativistic anyons, bosons, and fermions in two or three spatial dimensions and give a necessary and sufficient condition for the connection between such a particle’s spin $`\sigma `$ and its statistics phase $`\kappa S^1`$, which Pauli discovered to be

$$e^{2\pi \sigma i}=\kappa .$$
(1)
In three spatial dimensions, it has been shown that $`\kappa \{\pm 1\}`$, whereas in two dimensions, $`\kappa `$ can be any element of $`S^1`$ .

For a theory with nonabelian statistics, some additional structure (e.g., a Markov trace) is needed to define a statistics phase and, hence, to make the problem of finding a spin-statistics connection well posed. The issue whether and how the subsequent argument can be generalized to this case will be left open here.

In classical mechanics, the total angular momentum of two indistinguishable particles with respect to their center of mass is twice the angular momentum of each of the two with respect to the same point of reference. Does this fact have a quantum counterpart? Evidently, the observables to be compared with each other will typically live in different Hilbert spaces, so any analogous equality can, at most, be one up to a similarity transformation by a unitary operator between these two Hilbert spaces, i. e., up to unitary equivalence.

In the setting of two spatial dimensions, $`J`$ will denote the total222In this paper, the word “total” is, as usual, to be read as “spin plus orbital”. angular momentum operator of a given single particle in its one-particle space, and $`ȷ`$ will be the total angular momentum of the corresponding two-particle system with respect to its center of mass. It turns out that the spin-statistics connection holds if and only if there is a unitary operator $`U`$ such that $`ȷ=2UJU^{}`$. This strong result is possible since the rotation group $`S^1`$ is abelian, the consequence being that adding angular momenta is analogous to the classical addition.

In three spatial dimensions, the situation is more involved, since the rotation group and its universal covering are nonabelian, and therefore the addition of angular momenta and spins is well known to be more involved than in two dimensions. Denoting by $`J_z`$ the $`z`$-component of the single particle total angular momentum and by $`ȷ_z`$ the $`z`$-component of the two-particle system’s total angular momentum with respect to its center of mass, one finds that the condition

$$ȷ_z=2UJ_zU^{}$$
(2)
cannot hold as it stands. Nevertheless one can look for some subspace restricted to which the relation (2) is meaningful and provides a sufficient and necessary criterion for the spin-statistics connection.

To this end, the analysis of the three-dimensional case will be confined to the Hilbert spaces $`^{}`$ and $`^{}`$ of all one-particle and two-particle states where the $`z`$-components of all particle spins take their maximum values. Evidently these spaces are not invariant under most time evolutions. This does, however, not affect the argument given below, since it is purely kinematical: no Hamiltonian is specified, and the free Hamiltonian, which one may use to specify the particle mass as a further characteristic property of the particle, does commute with spin.

Within $`^{}`$, denote by $`_+`$ and $`_{}`$ the eigenspaces of the $`z`$-parity operator $`P_z:(x,y,z)(x,y,z)`$ consisting of the functions in that are even or odd in the $`z`$-component, respectively. It can be shown that Condition (2) holds either when restricted to $`_+`$ or when restricted to $`_{}`$. The spin-statistics connection is equivalent to the first alternative, and its violation is equivalent to the second.

After specifying some setting and notation in Sect. 2, the two-dimensional case is discussed in Sect. 3. The three-dimensional situation is discussed in Sect. 4, and some concluding remarks are made in Sect. 5.

## 2 Setting and Notation

The space of pure states of $`n`$ indistinguishable Bose or Fermi particles in $`s`$ spatial dimensions can be defined by imposing either symmetry or antisymmetry under particle exchange on a wave function in $`L^2(^{sn})`$. Alternatively, one may first reduce the classical configuration space by identifying indistinguishable configurations, and then consider all wave functions on this space. In three dimensions, it is a matter of taste which approach one wishes to use. In two dimensions, however, particles whose statistics is neither (para-) bosonic nor (para-) fermionic can occur, and these particles can only be described in the second approach. For this reason, this approach will be used in what follows.

Following Laidlaw and DeWitt , the configuration space of $`n`$ distinguishable particles in $`^s`$ is described by the set $`Y(n,s)`$ of all $`n`$-tuples of $`s`$-vectors no two of which coincide:

$$Y(n,s):=\{y=(𝐲_1,\mathrm{},𝐲_n)(^s)^n:𝐲_i𝐲_j\text{for}ij\}.$$

An action of the symmetric group $`S_n`$ on this space is defined by

$$\pi y:=(𝐲_{\pi ^1(1)},\mathrm{},𝐲_{\pi ^1(n)}),\pi S_n.$$

The orbits of $`S_n`$ in $`Y(n,s)`$ yield the configuration space $`X(n,s):=Y(n,s)/S_n`$ of $`n`$ indistinguishable particles. It is straightforward to endow $`X(n,s)`$ with the structure of a pathwise connected topological space for $`s2`$ whose fundamental group is $`S_n`$ for $`s=3`$ and the braid group $`B_n`$ for $`s=2`$. The fact that there are only two scalar unitary representations of $`S_n`$ implies the Bose-Fermi alternative for $`s=3`$ , in two spatial dimensions, arbitrary fractional statistics can occur as well .

For $`n=1`$, one has $`X(1,s)=^s`$, and a pure state of one particle whose $`z`$-component of spin equals its maximum possible value $`\sigma `$ can be described by a one-component wave function on $`^s`$ (all possible other spinor components vanish). As usual, the $`z`$-component of the orbital angular momentum is described by the self-adjoint operator $`L_z`$, and the $`z`$ component of the total angular momentum operator is $`J_z=L_z+\sigma `$.

For $`n=2`$, center of mass coordinates can be used to describe the configuration space of two indistinguishable particles as the cartesian product of $`^s`$ and a relative coordinate space $`𝒞`$ . In two spatial dimensions, $`𝒞`$ is the cone obtained (using planar polar coordinates) from the half plane

$$\overline{H}:=\{(r,\phi )^2:r0,\pi /2\phi \pi /2\}$$

by identifying $`(r,\pi /2)`$ with $`(r,\pi /2)`$ for each $`r>0`$ and by removing the origin at $`r=0`$. For $`s=3`$, $`𝒞`$ is obtained from the half space

$$\overline{H}:=\{(x,y,z)^3:x0\}$$

by identifying $`(0,y,z)`$ with $`(0,y,z)`$ for all $`(y,z)^2`$ and by removing the origin.

In both two and three dimensions, $`H`$ will denote the interior of $`\overline{H}`$.

## 3 Two spatial dimensions

In two spatial dimensions, the pure-state space of two indistinguishable particles both having spin $`\sigma `$ is canonically isomorphic with the space $`L^2(^2\times 𝒞)`$. The wave functions have one component only, since the universal covering group of the rotation group is abelian, and since, as a consequence, its irreducible representations are one-dimensional. Corresponding to the interrelation between $`𝒞`$ and $`H`$ just discussed, any choice of the above coordinates induces an isomorphism from $`L^2(^2\times 𝒞)`$ onto $`L^2(^2\times H)`$ in a straightforward fashion. Accordingly, the state space under consideration is

$$L^2(^2\times H,2d^2𝐑d^2𝐫)L^2(^2,d^2𝐑)L^2(H,2d^2𝐫).$$

The orbital angular momentum operator in $`L^2(^2)L^2(H)`$ with respect to the system’s center of mass is of the form $`1\mathrm{}`$, where $`\mathrm{}`$ is a self-adjoint operator in $`L^2(H)`$. On the test functions with compact support in the interior of $`H`$, the operator $`\mathrm{}`$ coincides with the familiar differential operator $`i_\phi `$. But this hermitian differential operator possesses many self-adjoint extensions $`\mathrm{}`$, which yield different unitaries $`R:=e^{\pi i\mathrm{}}`$. Since by definition, the orbital angular momentum operator generates a representation of the rotation group, one has $`R^2=e^{2\pi i\mathrm{}}=1`$.

If for some $`\lambda `$, we define $`ȷ:=\mathrm{}+\lambda `$ as the total angular momentum operator with respect to the center of mass, then the statistics phase $`\kappa S^1`$ is related to $`ȷ`$ by $`\kappa =e^{\pi iȷ}=Re^{\pi \lambda i}`$.333 As an aside, note that the exchange of two (indistinguishable) pairs of (indistinguishable) particles yields a braid diagram with four crossings, so the statistics phase of a two-particle system is $`\kappa ^4`$; cf. also . For arbitrary $`n`$, a little braid group diagrammatics shows that a rotation of $`n`$ indistinguishable particles with respect to their center of mass is accompanied by a statistics phase $`\kappa ^{n(n1)}`$, whereas the $`n`$-particle system’s statistics phase is $`\kappa ^{n^2}`$, so one can assign a statistics phase $`\kappa ^{n(n1)}`$ to the relative motion and a phase $`\kappa ^n`$ to the center of mass motion. This remark is redundant if $`\kappa \{\pm 1\}`$ as in three dimensions, but since in two dimensions, $`\kappa `$ can take any value in $`S^1`$, it should be in place here. It is to be emphasized that $`\lambda `$ is not assumed to equal $`2\sigma `$ from the outset; it will, however, be found as a result that $`\lambda 2\sigma `$ is an even integer if Pauli’s spin-statistics connection holds.

Denoting the orbital angular momentum operator $`i_\phi `$ in the single-particle space $`L^2(^2)`$ by $`L`$,444To be more precise, the differential operator $`i_\phi `$ is well defined and essentially self-adjoint on the dense domain of test functions; $`L`$ denotes its (self-adjoint) closure. the following theorem can be shown.

###### Theorem 1

For $`s=2`$, the spin-statistics connection holds if and only if there exists a unitary operator $`U:L^2(^2)L^2(H)`$ such that

$$ȷ=2(ULU^{}+\sigma ).$$
(3)
Proof. Two lemmas will be used:

###### Lemma 2

For every integer $`\nu `$ with $`(1)^\nu R=1`$, there exists a unitary operator $`U_\nu :L^2(^2)L^2(H)`$ with $`2L=U_\nu ^{}\mathrm{}U_\nu +\nu `$.

Proof. Denote the slit plane $`^{>0}\times (\pi ,\pi )`$ by $`H^2`$, and define

$$U_\nu \mathrm{\Psi }(r,\phi ):=e^{\nu \varphi i}\mathrm{\Psi }(r,2\phi ),\mathrm{\Psi }C_0^{\mathrm{}}(H^2),(r,\phi )H.$$

By Stone’s theorem, it suffices to prove that

$$e^{\vartheta i2L}\mathrm{\Psi }=e^{\vartheta i(U_\nu ^{}\mathrm{}U_n+\nu )}\mathrm{\Psi }$$

for every $`\mathrm{\Psi }C_0^{\mathrm{}}(H^2)`$ and every $`\vartheta `$. It turns out that this can be accomplished by pointwise evaluating $`e^{\vartheta i2L}\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`e^{\vartheta i(U_\nu ^{}\mathrm{}U_n+\nu )}\mathrm{\Psi }`$ almost everywhere. Namely, choose any $`(r,\varphi )H^2`$ such that there exists a unique integer $`n_{\vartheta ,\varphi }`$ with

$$\pi <\varphi 2\vartheta +2\pi n_{\vartheta ,\varphi }<\pi .$$

It is well known that $`e^{\vartheta i2L}\mathrm{\Psi }(r,\varphi )=\mathrm{\Psi }(r,\varphi 2\vartheta +2\pi n_{\vartheta ,\varphi })`$.

One concludes from this that

$`e^{\vartheta i(U_\nu ^{}\mathrm{}U_\nu +\nu )}`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }(r,\varphi )=e^{\nu \vartheta i}U_\nu ^{}e^{\vartheta i\mathrm{}}U_\nu \mathrm{\Psi }(r,\varphi )=e^{\nu i(\varphi /2\vartheta )}e^{\vartheta i\mathrm{}}U_\nu \mathrm{\Psi }(r,\varphi /2)`$
$`=e^{\nu i(\varphi /2\vartheta )}e^{\vartheta i\mathrm{}}e^{\nu (\varphi /2)i}\mathrm{\Psi }(r,\varphi )`$
$`=e^{\nu i(\varphi /2\vartheta )}R^{n_{\vartheta ,\varphi }}e^{i(\vartheta \pi n_{\vartheta ,\varphi })\mathrm{}}e^{\nu (\varphi /2)i}\mathrm{\Psi }(r,\varphi )`$
$`=e^{\nu i(\varphi /2\vartheta )}(1)^{\nu n_{\vartheta ,\varphi }}e^{\nu i(\varphi /2\vartheta +\pi n_{\vartheta ,\varphi })}\mathrm{\Psi }(r,\varphi 2\vartheta +2\pi n_{\vartheta ,\varphi })`$
$`=(1)^{\nu n_{\vartheta ,\varphi }}(1)^{\nu n_{\vartheta ,\varphi }}\mathrm{\Psi }(r,\varphi 2\vartheta +2\pi n_{\vartheta ,\varphi })`$
$`=\mathrm{\Psi }(r,\varphi 2\vartheta +2\pi n_{\vartheta ,\varphi })=e^{i\vartheta 2L}\mathrm{\Psi }(r,\varphi ).`$
Since this reasoning applies for almost all $`(r,\varphi )H^2`$, this completes the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 3

Any two of the following three conditions imply the third one:

> (i) $`e^{\pi iȷ}=e^{2\pi \sigma i}`$, i.e., Eq. (1).
> (ii) $`\lambda 2\sigma +2`$.
> (iii) $`R=1`$.

Proof. If Condition (i) holds, then

$$1=e^{\pi i\mathrm{}}e^{\pi i(\lambda 2\sigma )}=Re^{\pi i(\lambda 2\sigma )}.$$

It follows that Condition (i) implies \[(ii)$``$(iii)\]. It remains to show that \[(ii)$``$(iii)\] implies (i): $`e^{\pi iȷ}=e^{\pi i\mathrm{}}e^{\pi i(\lambda 2\sigma )}e^{2\pi \sigma i}=e^{2\pi i\sigma }`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Finally, to prove Thm. 1, assume Condition (3). One then has

$$\kappa =e^{\pi iȷ}=e^{\pi i2(ULU^{}+\sigma )}=e^{2\pi i\sigma }U\underset{=1}{\underset{}{e^{2\pi iL}}}U^{}=e^{2\pi i\sigma },$$

which is Eq. (1).

Conversely, assume Eq. (1) to hold. Then $`e^{\pi iȷ}=Re^{\pi i\lambda }=\pm e^{\pi \lambda i}=e^{2\pi \sigma i},`$ so $`\lambda 2\sigma `$.

If $`\lambda 2\sigma `$ is even, then Lemma 3 implies $`R=1=(1)^{\lambda 2\sigma }`$, so by Lemma 2, there exists a unitary intertwiner between $`2L`$ and $`\mathrm{}+\lambda 2\sigma `$, which is Condition (3).

If $`\lambda 2\sigma `$ is odd, then Lemma 3 implies $`R=1=(1)^{\lambda 2\sigma }`$. Again, Lemma 2 implies Condition (3). $`\mathrm{}`$

## 4 Three spatial dimensions

In three spatial dimensions, a relation analogous to Eq. (3) cannot hold on the whole Hilbert space. In order to see this, first note that such a condition would, in particular, have to hold for the one-particle- and two-particle states where the spins of all particles are prepared at their highest possible values $`\sigma \frac{1}{2}`$ (one-particle states) and $`\lambda `$ (two-particle states), respectively. The corresponding one-particle and two-particle spaces will be denoted by $`^{}`$ and $`^{}`$, respectively.

$`^{}`$ is canonically isomorphic with $`L^2(^2)`$, and $`^{}`$ is canonically isomorphic with the space $`L^2(^3\times 𝒞)`$, since all spinor components except one vanish. Any choice of the above coordinates induces an isomorphism from $`L^2(^3\times 𝒞)`$ onto $`L^2(^3\times H)`$ in a straightforward (while coordinate-dependent) fashion, so the state space under consideration is

$`^{}`$ $`=L^2(^3\times H,2d^3𝐑d^3𝐫)`$
$`L^2(^3,d^3𝐑)L^2(H,2d^3𝐫)=:_{\mathrm{CM}}^{}_{\mathrm{rel}}^{}.`$
The $`z`$-component of the orbital angular momentum operator in $`_{\mathrm{CM}}^{}_{\mathrm{rel}}^{}`$ with respect to the system’s center of mass is of the form $`1\mathrm{}_z`$, where $`\mathrm{}_z`$ is a self-adjoint operator in $`_{\mathrm{rel}}^{}L^2(H)`$. When restricted to $`C_0^{\mathrm{}}(H)`$, the self-adjoint operator $`\mathrm{}_z`$ coincides with the familiar hermitian differential operator $`i_\phi `$. Since by definition, the orbital angular momentum operator generates a representation of the group of rotations around the $`z`$-axis in $`L^2(H)`$, the operator $`R_z:=e^{\pi i\mathrm{}_z}`$ is an involution, i.e., $`R_z^2=e^{2\pi i\mathrm{}_z}=1`$.

Now define $`P_z\mathrm{\Psi }(r,\phi ,z)=\mathrm{\Psi }(r,\phi ,z)`$, and denote by $`ȷ_z:=\mathrm{}_z+\lambda `$ the $`z`$-component of the total angular momentum with respect to the center of mass. Since

$$\kappa =P_ze^{\pi iȷ_z}=e^{\pi \lambda i}P_zR_z,$$

(cf. the remark made in Sect. 2 concerning the role of $`\lambda `$), and since $`R_z^2=P_z^2=\kappa ^2=1`$, one finds $`R_z=\pm P_z`$.

Next note that in this setting, the condition of Thm. 1 would still lead to

$$1=Ue^{2\pi iL_z}U^{}=e^{\pi i(2UL_zU^{})}=e^{\pi i(ȷ_z\lambda )}S^1R_z=S^1P_z,$$

so it cannot hold as it stands.

Defining $`_\pm :=\{\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{rel}}^{}:P_z\mathrm{\Psi }=\pm \mathrm{\Psi }\}`$, one can prove

###### Theorem 4

(i) For $`s=3`$, the spin-statistics connection (1) holds if and only if there exists a unitary operator $`U:^{}_{\mathrm{rel}}^{}`$ such that

$$ȷ_z|__+=2U(L_z+\sigma )U^{}|__+.$$
(4)
(ii) For $`s=3`$, Eq. (1) does not hold if and only if there exists a unitary operator $`U:^{}_{\mathrm{rel}}^{}`$ such that

$$ȷ_z|_{_{}}=2U(L_z+\sigma )U^{}|_{_{}}.$$
(5)
Proof. The three-dimensional counterpart of Lemma 2 is

###### Lemma 5

(i) For every integer $`\nu `$ with $`R_z(1)^\nu |__+=1`$, there exists a unitary operator $`U_\nu :L^2(^3)L^2(H)`$ with

$$(\mathrm{}_z+\nu )|__+=2U_\nu L_zU_\nu ^{}|__+.$$

(ii) For every integer $`\nu `$ with $`R_z(1)^\nu |_{_{}}=1`$, there exists a unitary operator $`U_\nu :L^2(^3)L^2(H)`$ with

$$(\mathrm{}_z+\nu )|_{_{}}=2U_\nu L_zU_\nu ^{}|_{_{}}.$$

Proof. In analogy to Lemma 2, define $`U_\nu \mathrm{\Psi }(r,\phi ,z):=e^{\nu \phi i}\mathrm{\Psi }(r,2\phi ,z)`$ (using cylinder coordinates), which, as above, intertwines between the hermitian differential operators $`i_\phi +\nu `$ defined on the domain $`C_0^{\mathrm{}}(H)`$ and $`2_\phi ^{}`$ defined on the domain $`C_0^{\mathrm{}}(H^2)`$, respectively. Using this operator in both cases, the proofs are completely analogous to that of Lemma 2. $`\mathrm{}`$

The three-dimensional counterpart of Lemma 3 is

###### Lemma 6

(i) Any two of the following three conditions imply the third one.

> (i.i) $`\kappa =P_ze^{\pi iȷ_z}|__+=e^{\pi iȷ_z}|__+=e^{2\pi \sigma i}.`$
> (i.ii) $`\lambda 2\sigma +2`$.
> (i.iii) $`R_z|__+=P_z|__+=1`$.

(ii) Any two of the following three conditions imply the third one.

> (ii.i) $`\kappa =P_ze^{\pi iȷ_z}|_{_{}}=e^{\pi iȷ_z}|_{_{}}=e^{2\pi \sigma i}`$.
> (ii.ii) $`\lambda 2\sigma +1+2`$.
> (ii.iii) $`R_z|_{_{}}=P_z|_{_{}}=1`$.

Proof. The proofs of the two statements are completely analogous to the proof of Lemma 3 and will not be spelled out here. $`\mathrm{}`$

Finally, to prove Thm. 4, assume Condition (4). One then has

$$\kappa =\underset{=1}{\underset{}{P_z|__+}}e^{\pi iȷ_z}|__+=e^{\pi i2(UL_zU^{}+\sigma )}|__+=e^{2\pi i\sigma }U\underset{=1}{\underset{}{e^{2\pi iL_z}}}U^{}|__+=e^{2\pi i\sigma },$$

which is Eq. (1).

Conversely, assume Eq. (1). Then Condition (i.i) in Lemma 6 holds. If $`\lambda 2\sigma `$ is even, then Lemma 6.i implies $`R_z=1=(1)^{\lambda 2\sigma }`$. Lemma 5 then implies that on $`_+`$, there exists a unitary intertwiner between $`2L_z`$ and $`\mathrm{}+\lambda 2\sigma `$, whence Condition (4) follows.

If $`\lambda 2\sigma `$ is odd, then Lemma 6 implies $`R_z=1=(1)^{\lambda 2\sigma }`$, and again, Lemma 5 (i) implies that on $`_+`$, there is a unitary intertwiner between $`L_z`$ and $`\mathrm{}_z+\lambda 2\sigma `$. This proves Statement (i).

The proof of Statement (ii) is completely analogous. $`\mathrm{}`$

It is instructive to see what the conditions and statements of Theorem 4 look like when applied to the example of bound states of two spinless Bose or Fermi particles interacting via some attractive central potential.

The parity of each bound state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{rel}}^{}`$ is $`(1)^l`$, where $`l`$ is the azimuthal quantum number. By the indistinguishability of the two particles, only states with either even or odd $`l`$ can occur, depending on whether the particles are bosons or fermions, respectively. Evidently, the latter violate the spin-statistics connection in the spinless case.

If the two particles are bosons, then $`l`$ must be even, and the spin-statistics connection holds, so the additivity of angular momenta must hold in $`_+`$ by Thm. 4. For each bound state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_+`$, the difference $`lm`$ must be even as well, because $`P_z\mathrm{\Psi }=(1)^{lm}\mathrm{\Psi }`$. It follows that $`m`$ is even and that $`U^{}\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is an eigenvector of $`L_z`$ with the integer eigenvalue $`m/2`$.

If on the other hand, the two particles are fermions, then only bound states with odd $`l`$ occur, and since the spin-statistics connection is violated, the additivity of angular momenta holds in the space $`_{}`$ by Thm 4. Reasoning as before, one obtains that $`lm`$ is odd for bound states in $`_{}`$ and that $`m`$, in turn, is even. Again, $`U^{}\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is an eigenvector of $`L_z`$ with the integer eigenvalue $`m/2`$.

We find that the space $`_+`$ or $`_{}`$ where the additivity condition holds contains precisely the bound states in $`_{\mathrm{rel}}^{}`$ with even magnetic quantum numbers, as it should be.

## 5 Conclusion and Outlook

The fact that in classical mechanics, the total angular momentum of a system of two identical particles with respect to its center of mass is twice that of each of the two particles, does, in parts, have a quantum mechanical counterpart.

For nonrelativistic quantum mechanics in two spatial dimensions, it turns out that this condition — stated in terms of unitary equivalence of the corresponding operators $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`2L`$ — is both sufficient and necessary for the spin-statistics connection.

In three spatial dimensions, the nonabelianness of $`SU(2)`$ implies that the analysis has to be confined to the $`z`$-components of the vector operators involved. It is customary to confine the discussion to those states where all particle spins have maximal $`z`$-components. Within the space of these states, the analogue to the two-dimensional additivity condition holds for either the wave functions that are even in the $`z`$-component of their relative coordinate or for the corresponding odd functions.

It turns out that the first alternative is equivalent to the spin-statistics relation, whereas the second alternative is equivalent to its violation.

The above results can be reformulated in a way that may be considered as more natural, since the relative-coordinate space $`𝒞`$ does not need to be “cut open” there in order to obtain the half space $`H`$ used above. This is currently being worked out together with Jens Mund, and a corresponding joint paper will be published shortly .

Acknowledgements. This work has been funded by the Stichting FOM and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. I would like to thank D. Arlt, D. Bahns, K. Fredenhagen, N. P. Landsman, R. Lorenzen, J.-M. Leinaas, J. Myrheim, M. Porrmann, K.-H. Rehren, T. Schlegelmilch, and J. Zahn for helpful discussions and questions. During the revision of this manuscript, the discussions with Jens Mund have been a great help.


text:
# Non-Fermi liquid behavior of quasi one-dimensional pseudogap materials

(August 26, 2002)

## Abstract

We study the spectral function of the pseudogap phase of quasi one-dimensional charge density wave materials. Using a stochastic approach and emphasizing an exact treatment of non-Gaussian order parameter fluctuations we will go beyond a usual perturbative calculation. Our results give a good fit to ARPES data and explain the absence of the Fermi edge in charge density wave materials even above the Peierls transition, indicating non-Fermi liquid behavior.

Non-Fermi liquid behavior is a central topic of modern condensed matter physics. A paradigmatic example represents the universality class of Luttinger liquids Haldane81 ; Voit94  whose spectral properties have been calculated exactly Meden92  and which applies to the low-energy physics of a variety of one-dimensional ($`1d`$) gapless systems. However, recent angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES) measurements of charge density wave materials like the blue bronze $`\text{K}_{0.3}\text{Mo}\text{O}_3`$ or $`(\text{Ta}\text{Se}_4)_2\text{I}`$ Dardel91 ; Claessen95 ; Gweon96 ; Gweon01 ; Perfetti02  show that these materials cannot be understood in terms of Luttinger liquid theory, even at temperatures far above the Peierls transition. It turns out that the pseudogap observed in the charge density wave materials is similar to that found in the underdoped phase of high temperature superconductors Loeser96 ; Damascelli02 . It is this analogy which makes a better understanding of the $`1d`$ pseudogap phase even more interesting.

The relative proximity of the pseudogap phase of charge density wave materials to the Peierls transition indicates that strong electron-phonon interactions should play a dominant role. In the early seventies, Lee, Rice, and Anderson Lee et al. (1973) studied the single-particle Green function of a $`1d`$ model based on order parameter fluctuations within the second-order Born approximation. Although this calculation could qualitatively explain the observed pseudogap phenomenon Shannon00 , its validity hinges on its perturbative nature. As is well known for correlated $`1d`$ electronic systems, interference effects due to perfect nesting between the two Fermi points invalidate a perturbative calculation near the Fermi level. Therefore, one should rather try to find a more accurate or even exact solution. A widely used partial fraction expansion of the single-particle Green function presented by Sadovskii Sadovskii (1979) was intended to be exact for Gaussian order parameter fluctuations but turned out to be only an approximate solution to the problem raised by Lee, Rice, and Anderson Tchernyshyov (1999).

Numerical simulations based on exact diagonalization methods Millis and Monien (2000) or the phase formalism Bartosch and Kopietz (1999); Bartosch00d  gave exact results for the density of states (DOS) for Gaussian order parameter fluctuations but showed also that Gaussian order parameter fluctuations are inapplicable at low temperatures where amplitude fluctuations should get frozen out and a hard gap should appear in the limit $`T0`$ if quantum fluctuations are neglected. As pointed out in Ref. Bartosch00d, , the right low-temperature physics can be described within a model based on classical phase fluctuations. Using the phase formalism outlined in Ref. Bartosch00d, , the DOS was also calculated numerically for the crossover regime to non-Gaussian order parameter fluctuations using a standard Ginzburg-Landau theory Monien (2001). How to find non-perturbative results for the complete spectral function which could be compared with ARPES data, however, remained an open question.

In this work we shall turn to this problem and calculate the spectral function of the $`1d`$ pseudogap phase of charge density wave materials for order parameter fluctuations given by a generalized Ginzburg-Landau functional. We generalize a stochastic method originated by Halperin Halperin (1965); Lifshits et al. (1988) for a particle in a white noise potential towards pseudogap systems involving disorder of the colored noise type.

As a starting point, we use the fluctuating gap model Lee et al. (1973); Sadovskii (1979); Lifshits et al. (1988) which couples the electronic degrees of freedom to a complex order parameter field $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(x)\mathrm{\Delta }(x)e^{i\vartheta (x)}`$ with amplitude $`\mathrm{\Delta }(x)`$ and phase $`\vartheta (x)`$. The two-component wave functions $`𝝍_n(x)`$ satisfy a Dirac-like equation 111In this work we use units such that $`\mathrm{}=v_F=k_B=1`$. Later we will reintroduce the Fermi velocity $`v_F`$.,

$$[i𝝈_3_x+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(x)𝝈_++\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}(x)𝝈_{}]𝝍_n(x)=\omega _n𝝍_n(x).$$
(1)
Here $`𝝈_\pm (𝝈_1\pm i𝝈_2)/2`$ and $`𝝈_3`$ are the usual Pauli matrices. Since the Hamiltonian corresponding to Eq. (1) is form invariant under the charge conjugation operation $`𝑯𝝈_1𝑯^{}𝝈_1`$ it is possible to use boundary conditions which imply that all eigenstates $`𝝍_n(x)`$ are invariant under the charge conjugation operation $`𝝍_n(x)𝝈_1𝝍_n^{}(x)`$. All these eigenstates may be found by making the Eikonal ansatz

$$𝝍(x)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi (x)\\ \psi ^{}(x)\end{array}\right)=Ae^{\zeta (x)}\left(\begin{array}{c}ie^{i\phi (x)/2}\\ ie^{i\phi (x)/2}\end{array}\right).$$
(2)
In the thermodynamic limit $`L\mathrm{}`$, where $`L`$ is the length of the chain, all physical quantities we will be interested in are independent of these boundary conditions Lifshits et al. (1988). The logarithmic amplitude $`\zeta (x)`$ and the phase $`\phi (x)`$ satisfy the following equations of motion Bartosch00d ,

$`_x\phi (x)`$ $`=2\omega +2\mathrm{\Delta }(x)\mathrm{cos}\left[\phi (x)\vartheta (x)\right],`$ (3a)
$`_x\zeta (x)`$ $`=\mathrm{\Delta }(x)\mathrm{sin}\left[\phi (x)\vartheta (x)\right].`$ (3b)
$`\phi (x)`$ and $`\zeta (x)`$ are simply related to the DOS $`\rho (\omega )`$ and the inverse localization length (or Lyapunov exponent) $`\mathrm{}^1(\omega )`$ by Bartosch00d

$$\rho (\omega )=\frac{1}{2\pi }_\omega _x\phi (x),\mathrm{}^1(\omega )=_x\zeta (x).$$
(4)
Here and in the following, $`\mathrm{}`$ indicates averaging with respect to the probability distribution of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(x)`$ which we will specify below.

The spectral function for right- or left-moving electrons ($`\alpha =\pm 1`$) is defined in terms of the appropriately normalized wave functions $`𝝍_n(x)`$ as

$`A^\alpha (k;\omega )A(\alpha (k_F+k);\omega )`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left|{\displaystyle _{L/2}^{L/2}}𝑑xe^{ikx}\psi _n(x)\right|^2\delta (\omega \omega _n).`$ (5)
Note that we measure the deviation $`k`$ of a wave vector $`p=\alpha (k_F+k)`$ from one of the two Fermi wave vectors $`\pm k_F`$ locally outwards such that due to inversion symmetry $`A^\alpha (k;\omega )`$ is independent of $`\alpha `$.

Instead of using $`|𝝍_n|^2𝑑x=1`$ to normalize the wave functions let us now use the normalization condition $`|\psi _n(0)|=1`$. Since the process of averaging restores translational invariance, it follows

$$A^\alpha (k;\omega )=\underset{n}{}\frac{_{L/2}^{L/2}𝑑xe^{ikx}\psi _n(x)\psi _n^{}(0)}{2_{L/2}^{L/2}𝑑x\left|\psi _n(x)\right|^2}\delta (\omega \omega _n).$$
(6)
Of course, not every solution to Eqs. (2) and (3) is an eigenstate of the system. To construct the eigenstates, we follow Ref. Lifshits et al., 1988 and integrate the equations of motion (3) from the boundaries at $`L/2`$ and $`L/2`$ to $`x=0`$ where we try to match these solutions. Let us call the solutions to Eqs. (3a) and (3b) when advancing the solution from $`L/2`$ to the right (left) $`\phi _\pm (x)`$ and $`\zeta _\pm (x)`$. $`\psi (x)`$ is then given by

$$\psi (x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}ie^{\zeta _+(0)+\zeta _+(x)+i\phi _+(x)/2},x<0\hfill & \\ ie^{\zeta _{}(0)+\zeta _{}(x)+i\phi _{}(x)/2},x>0\hfill & \end{array}.$$
(7)
The eigenstates $`𝝍_n(x)`$ are determined by the energies $`\omega _n`$ for which the matching condition $`\phi _+(0)=\phi _{}(0)`$ (up to multiples of $`2\pi `$) is satisfied. In this case $`\phi _+(x)=\phi _{}(x)`$ for all $`x`$, and the eigenstates have their maxima somewhere in the bulk from where the wave functions fall off exponentially.

Let us also introduce

$$U_\pm (x)\frac{e^{ikx}}{\psi (x)}_{L/2}^x𝑑x^{}e^{ikx^{}}\psi (x^{}),$$
(8)
which satisfy the additional equation of motion

$$_xU(x)=i[k\omega \mathrm{\Delta }(x)e^{i[\phi (x)\vartheta (x)]}]U(x)+1.$$
(9)
It is now possible to rewrite the spectral function as

$`A^\alpha (k;\omega )`$ $`=\left[U_+(0)U_{}(0)\right]\delta (\phi _+(0)\phi _{}(0))`$
$`=2\text{Re}U_+(0)\delta (\phi _+(0)\phi _{}(0)).`$ (10)
One may explicitly verify that the spectral function $`A(k;\omega )=A^\alpha (|k|k_F;\omega )`$ satisfies the usual sum rules,

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega A(k;\omega )`$ $`=1,`$ (11)
$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{2\pi }}A(k;\omega )`$ $`=2\delta (\phi _+(0)\phi _{}(0))=\rho (\omega ).`$ (12)
The order parameter fluctuations of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(x)=\mathrm{\Delta }(x)e^{i\vartheta (x)}`$ are determined by a free energy functional which has been derived in the context of superconductivity Kosztin et al. (1998). Expanding the free energy functional in powers of the order parameter field $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(x)`$ and derivatives thereof one obtains the usual Ginzburg-Landau functional. A better approximation which is not restricted to small $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and hence is valid at arbitrary temperatures can be obtained by expanding only in gradients of the order parameter field. The generalized Ginzburg-Landau free energy functional including all terms up to second order in the gradients of the phase and the amplitude of the order parameter has the form Kosztin et al. (1998)

$`\beta F\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\}`$ $`={\displaystyle _{L/2}^{L/2}}dx[{\displaystyle \frac{M(\mathrm{\Delta }(x))}{2}}\left(_x\mathrm{\Delta }(x)\right)^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{n(\mathrm{\Delta }(x))}{2}}\left(_x\vartheta (x)\right)^2+V(\mathrm{\Delta }(x))],`$ (13)
where

$`M(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{~}{\omega }_n>0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\omega }_n^2}{(\stackrel{~}{\omega }_n^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2)^{5/2}}},`$ (14a)
$`n(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{~}{\omega }_n>0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{(\stackrel{~}{\omega }_n^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2)^{3/2}}},`$ (14b)
$`V(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ $`=4{\displaystyle \underset{0<\stackrel{~}{\omega }_nϵ_0}{}}\left(\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\omega }_n^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}\stackrel{~}{\omega }_n\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{\pi \lambda T}}.`$ (14c)
Here, $`T=1/\beta `$ is the temperature of the system, $`\lambda 1`$ is the dimensionless electron-phonon coupling constant, $`ϵ_0`$ is an ultraviolet (bandwidth) cutoff, and $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_n=(2n+1)\pi T`$ are fermionic Matsubara frequencies. In the weak coupling limit $`\lambda 1`$, $`V(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ and hence $`F\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\}`$ depend on $`\lambda `$ and $`ϵ_0`$ only via the critical mean-field temperature $`T_c^{\text{MF}}=1.134ϵ_0\mathrm{exp}(1/\lambda )`$.

The probability for a given realization of the order parameter field $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(x)`$ is proportional to $`\mathrm{exp}(\beta F\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\})`$. This probability can be described as a stochastic process which due to the locality of $`F\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\}`$ has the Markov property. The probability $`P(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(x)`$ assumes the value $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the transition probabilities $`T(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(x)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(x^{}))`$ can be calculated using the transfer matrix method Scalapino et al. (1972). At this point we would like to note that the integral and derivatives in Eq. (Non-Fermi liquid behavior of quasi one-dimensional pseudogap materials) should be considered as a sum and finite differences. In the case of a generalized Ginzburg-Landau theory as considered here, $`P(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ and $`T(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(x)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(x^{}))`$ actually do depend on the lattice constant $`d`$. In Fig. 1 we show $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}`$ and $`\xi ^1`$ as functions of temperature. For small temperatures we have $`\xi v_F/\pi T`$ and $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}1.76T_c^{\text{MF}}`$, consistent with the predictions of a strictly $`1d`$ theory based on classical phase fluctuations Grüner (1994); Bartosch00d . Since $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}1.76T_c^{\text{MF}}`$, our generalized Ginzburg-Landau functional given in Eqs. (Non-Fermi liquid behavior of quasi one-dimensional pseudogap materials) and (14) may not simply be replaced by a usual Ginzburg-Landau functional by expanding in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. In contrast to predictions based on standard Ginzburg-Landau theory as used in Refs. Monien, 2001 and Scalapino et al., 1972, our calculations show that $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}`$ grows with increasing temperature.

The stochastic process corresponding to $`T(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(x)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(x^{}))`$ can be described by the Langevin equations

$`_x\mathrm{\Delta }(x)`$ $`=a(\mathrm{\Delta })+b(\mathrm{\Delta })\eta _\mathrm{\Delta }(x),`$ (15a)
$`_x\vartheta (x)`$ $`=\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{n(\mathrm{\Delta }(x))}}\right)^{1/2}\eta _\vartheta (x).`$ (15b)
Here $`\eta _i(x)`$ with $`i=\mathrm{\Delta },\vartheta `$ represent Gaussian white noise with $`\eta _i(x)\eta _j(x^{})=\delta _{i,j}\delta (xx^{})`$. $`a(\mathrm{\Delta })`$, $`b(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ and $`P(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ are simply related to $`T(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }^{})`$ and satisfy $`a(\mathrm{\Delta })=b(\mathrm{\Delta })_\mathrm{\Delta }(b(\mathrm{\Delta })P(\mathrm{\Delta }))/2P(\mathrm{\Delta })`$.

To make further progress we absorb the phase of the order parameter field $`\vartheta (x)`$ by the gauge transformation Brazovskii and Dzyaloshinskii (1976); Bartosch00d  $`\phi (x)\phi (x)+\vartheta (x)`$. We now obtain the equations of motion

$`_x\phi (x)`$ $`=2\omega _x\vartheta (x)+2\mathrm{\Delta }(x)\mathrm{cos}\left[\phi (x)\right],`$ (16a)
$`_x\zeta (x)`$ $`=\mathrm{\Delta }(x)\mathrm{sin}\left[\phi (x)\right],`$ (16b)
$`_xU(x)`$ $`=i[k\omega \mathrm{\Delta }(x)e^{i\phi (x)}]U(x)+1.`$ (16c)
Since the stochastic process for a given realization of the order parameter field has the Markov property we may write Eq. (10) as

$`A^\alpha (k;\omega )=`$ $`2\text{Re}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\phi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{P(\mathrm{\Delta })}}`$
$`\times `$ $`P_1(\mathrm{\Delta },\phi ;0)P_0(\mathrm{\Delta },\phi ;0).`$ (17)
Here

$`P_0(\mathrm{\Delta },\phi ;x)=`$ $`\delta (\phi \phi _+(x))\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }(x)),`$ (18a)
$`P_1(\mathrm{\Delta },\phi ;x)=`$ $`U_+(x)\delta (\phi \phi _+(x)\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }(x)).`$ (18b)
An expression similar to Eq. (17) (with $`P_1`$ replaced by $`P_0`$) does hold for the DOS. Making use of the Gaussian white noise property of the variables $`\eta _i(x)`$, one may show that $`P_0`$ and $`P_1`$ obey (with $`_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ acting on everything to its right)

$`_xP_0=[`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{_\phi ^2}{2n}}2_\phi (\omega +\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}\phi )+{\displaystyle \frac{(_\mathrm{\Delta }b)^2}{2}}_\mathrm{\Delta }a]P_0,`$ (19a)
$`_xP_1=[`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{_\phi ^2}{2n}}2(\omega +\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}\phi )_\phi +i(k\omega \mathrm{\Delta }e^{i\phi }).`$
$`.+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(_\mathrm{\Delta }b)^2}{2}}_\mathrm{\Delta }a]P_1+P_0.`$ (19b)
The stationary solutions to the $`2d`$ Fokker-Planck equation (19a) and the $`2d`$ partial differential equation (19b) may be found numerically. We then obtain the spectral function $`A^\alpha (k;\omega )`$ (as well as the DOS and the inverse localization length) by simple quadrature. The spectral function, the DOS and the inverse localization length are therefore simultaneously directly calculable without any approximations. There is no need to simulate a long chain as was done for the DOS (and the inverse localization length) in Refs. Millis and Monien, 2000; Bartosch and Kopietz, 1999; Bartosch00d, ; Monien, 2001.

As can be seen in Fig. 2, at low temperatures $`A^\alpha (k;\omega )`$ exhibits two peaks instead of a quasi particle peak.

Although the qualitative features of the spectral function agree with perturbation theory or the Sadovskii approximation McKenzie96b , on a quantitative level there are large deviations, being due to the non-Gaussian nature of the order parameter fluctuations. To compare our results with experiments, we note that for large photon energies the conventional interpretation of the ARPES line shape predicts that it is essentially proportional to Gweon01 ; Joynt99

$$I(k;\omega )=\underset{k^{}k}{}\underset{\omega ^{}\omega }{}A^<(k^{};\omega ^{}),$$
(20)
where $`A^<(k;\omega )A^\alpha (k;\omega )/(e^{\beta \omega }+1)`$ is the spectral function multiplied with the Fermi function. In Fig. 3(a) we show a plot of $`A^<(k;\omega )`$ for $`T=0.5T_c^{\text{MF}}`$ and different values of $`k`$. $`A^<(k;\omega )`$ agrees reasonably well with the ARPES spectra presented in Fig. 1(a) of Ref. Perfetti02,  which were taken at $`T=210`$K.

In Fig. 3(b) we compare angle integrated photoemission data with our theory. The only fit parameter used is $`T_c^{\text{MF}}=60`$ meV$`=696`$ K. This value is less than a factor of two larger than $`T_c^{\text{MF}}400`$ K, as obtained from optical conductivity measurements Grüner (1994). The deviation might be due to a renormalization of $`\lambda `$ by electron-electron interactions and the simplicity of the model. Nonetheless, $`\rho ^<(\omega )=\frac{dk}{2\pi }A^<(k;\omega )`$ does give a good fit to experimental data. We conclude that order parameter fluctuations seem to dominate the pseudogap phase.

In summary, we have calculated the spectral function of a $`1d`$ electronic system coupled to order parameter fluctuations determined by a generalized Ginzburg-Landau theory. Our results show that the essential physics of the pseudogap phase of quasi $`1d`$ charge density wave systems can be captured within a strictly $`1d`$ model based on order parameter fluctuations, treating their non-Gaussian statistics exactly. These order parameter fluctuations lead to non-Fermi liquid behavior and the experimentally observed absence of a Fermi edge.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author would like to thank P. Kopietz, H. Monien, and R. H. McKenzie for discussions. This work was partially supported by the DFG via Forschergruppe FOR 412, Project No. KO 1442/5-1.