text:
# On Relativistic Corrections to Microlensing Effects: Applications to the Galactic Black Hole

## 1 Introduction

Microlensing describes gravitational lensing of a source whose multiple images are not resolved. Two fundamental microlensing observables are the total magnification (photometry) and image centroid shift (astrometry) of images of a lensed source. These observables have important astrophysical applications such as determining the mass and distance to the lens, angular radius of the source, etc. (see, e.g., Paczynski 1996, Paczyński 1998, Boden, Shao & van Buren 1998, Jeong, Han & Park 1999, Gaudi & Petters 2002, and references therein).

A natural issue to explore is how are the photometry and astrometry of a source being lensed by a point mass changed when the point mass is replaced by a black hole lens. This could have important implications for the testability of general relativity’s predictions about how the gravitational field of a black hole affects light rays. Indeed, the standard theoretical framework for point mass microlensing is based on relativistic calculations to first-order in $`1/x_0`$ about a Schwarzschild black hole, where

$$x_0=\frac{r_0}{2\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{g}},\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{g}=\frac{GM_{}}{c^2},$$

where $`M_{}`$ is the black hole’s mass and $`\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{g}`$ the gravitational radius. Ebina et al. (2000) found that to second-order in $`1/x_0`$, the relativistic corrections appear in the position and magnification of images due to a point mass lens, while no such correction appears in the total magnification. Lewis & Wang (2001) also showed that no relativistic correction to second-order in $`1/x_0`$ occurs for the associated image centroid shift. In this paper, we extend the work of the previous authors by determining an analytical expression under assumptions A1A3 for the full Schwarzschild black hole relativistic correction of the image centroid shift, which includes the total magnification, for point and extended sources with arbitrary surface brightness.

The full relativistic corrections will then be applied to the case of the massive black hole at the center of our Galaxy. Microlensing by the Galactic black hole has been studied by several authors in the weak-field limit of the black hole (e.g, Wardle & Yusef-Zadeh 1992, Alexander & Sternberg 1999, Alexander & Loeb 2001, Alexander 2001). In addition, the precession of star orbits in the strong-field regime of the black hole was considered by, e.g., Jaroszynński (1998a, b, 1999), Fragile & Mathews (2000). Virbhadra & Ellis (2000) gave a numerical treatment of the magnifications of several relativistic images for a point source being lensed by a Schwarzschild black hole lens at the Galactic center. They considered sources within our Galaxy that are far away from the black hole (about $`8.5\mathrm{kpc}`$), while we shall consider sources as close as $`10\mathrm{pc}`$ to the black hole. Analytical work on magnification due to a Schwarzschild lens was also done by several authors for point and/or extended sources with uniform brightness profiles (e.g., Ohanian 1987, Frittelli, Kling & Newman 2000, Bozza et al. 2001, Eiroa, Romero & Torres 2002). As noted above, our microlensing treatment will apply not only to the magnification, but the image centroid of extended sources with arbitrary surface brightness.

We shall also show that a single factor approximates the relativistic corrections to the weak-field total magnification and image centroid due to a Schwarzchild black hole lens at the Galactic center. The same factor applies to either a point or extended source. Estimates of this factor will be given for lens-sources distances ranging from $`10\mathrm{pc}`$ to $`100\mathrm{pc}`$. In principle, the magnification and image centroid of sources closer to the Galactic black hole should provide stronger relativistic microlensing signatures. We shall show that even for sources about $`10\mathrm{pc}`$ behind the black hole, the full relativistic correction is still negligible.

Section 2 reviews some basic results about lensing by a Schwarzschild black hole. In Section 3, we compute explicitly the image centroid due to a Schwarschild black hole acting on point and extended sources with arbitrary brightness profiles. Our image centroid formula expresses the relativistic image centroid in terms of the weak-field image centroid due to a point mass lens. Section 4 estimates the relativistic corrections to microlensing by the Galactic black hole.

## 2 Image Position and Magnification

We review some basic analytical results about the image positions and magnification due to a Schwarzschild black hole lens.

### 2.1 Lens Equation and Bending Angle

A Schwarzschild black hole of mass $`M_{}`$ is the unique static, spherically symmetric, vacuum (i.e., Ricci flat) spacetime that is Minkowski at infinity (e.g., Wald 1984, p. 119):

$$ds^2=\left(1\frac{\mathrm{r}_{}}{r}\right)c^2dt^2+\left(1\frac{\mathrm{r}_{}}{r}\right)^1dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2$$

where $`\mathrm{r}_{}`$ is the Schwarzschild radius

$$\mathrm{r}_{}=2\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{g}=3\frac{M_{}}{M_{}}\mathrm{km}$$

and $`d\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ the standard metric on a $`2`$-sphere of radius 1.

Relative to the optical axis through the observer and center of the black hole, let $`\beta `$ denote the angular position of a point source behind the black hole. Note that a source between the observer and the black hole is also lensed; in principle, even the observer is lensed. Such situations will not be treated in this paper. We shall always assume the standard lensing configuration of a source behind the black hole

The capture cross section $`\sigma `$ of a light ray in a Schwarzschild spacetime is $`\sigma =\pi b_{\mathrm{crit}}^2,`$ where $`b_{\mathrm{crit}}=3\sqrt{3}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{g}`$ is the critical apparent impact parameter (e.g., Wald 1984, p.144). Consequently, any light ray that makes it from the source to the observer will have an apparent impact parameter $`b`$ greater than $`b_{\mathrm{crit}}`$. The classification of null geodesics in the Schwarzschild geometry divides such source-to-observer light rays into those that loop around the black hole at least once before arriving at the observer and those that travel directly to the observer without looping (cf. Misner, Thorne & Wheeler 1973, p. 674).

Let $`D_{LS}`$, $`D_L`$, and $`D_S`$ be the distances from lens to source, observer to lens, and observer to source, resp. Denote the angular position of a lensed image relative to the line of sight by $`\vartheta `$. A negative angle $`\vartheta `$ will correspond to an angular position on the side of the black hole opposite to the angular position $`\vartheta `$. A trigonometric argument yields the lens equation, which relates $`\beta `$ and $`\vartheta `$ as follows (Virbhadra & Ellis 2000):

$$\mathrm{tan}\beta =\mathrm{tan}\vartheta \frac{D_{LS}}{D_S}(\mathrm{tan}\vartheta +\mathrm{tan}(\widehat{\alpha }\vartheta )),$$
(1)
where $`\widehat{\alpha }`$ is the bending angle of the lensed ray. The lensed images of a light source at $`\beta `$ are the solutions $`\vartheta `$ of the lens equation. The magnification $`\mu `$ of a lensed image $`\vartheta `$ is the ratio of the solid angle subtended at the distance to the source by the lensed image to the solid angle of the unlensed source. Explicitly,

$$\mu (\vartheta )=\left|\frac{\mathrm{sin}\beta (\vartheta )}{\mathrm{sin}\vartheta }\frac{d\beta }{d\vartheta }(\vartheta )\right|^1.$$
(2)
The lens equation cannot be solved analytically in closed form, so approximations appropriate to the lensing scenario of interest to us will be employed.

Our working assumptions are:

* The source is assumed to be close to the line of sight, i.e., $`|\beta |<<1`$, and lie in the asymptotically flat region outside the black hole, i.e., $`D_{LS}>>\mathrm{r}_{}`$.
* In anticipation of later applications to the Galactic black hole, we suppose that $`D_L>>b`$ and $`D_{LS}>>b`$, where $`b`$ is the apparent impact parameter of any light ray from the source to the observer.
* For any light ray from the source to the observer that do not wind around the black hole, we shall assume that its distance of closest approach $`r_0`$ lies in the weak-field regime regime, i.e., $`r_0>>\mathrm{r}_{}`$.

We shall now use A1 \- A3 to simplify the tangent terms in the lens equation. Relative to the observer, the caustic due to the black hole coincides with the optical axis passing the observer and singularity at $`r=0`$. By A1, the source is near to the optical axis (i.e., $`|\beta |<<1`$), so the source is highly magnified and its angular position satisfies

$$\mathrm{tan}\beta \beta .$$
(3)
In A2, it is important to add that the apparent impact parameter $`b`$ and distance $`r_0`$ of closest approach are not equal in general and approximate each other in the weak-field limit. In fact, for our lensing assumptions, the quantities $`b`$ and $`r_0`$ are related as follows (e.g., Wald (1984), p. 144)

$$b=\frac{r_0}{\sqrt{1\mathrm{r}_{}/r_0}}.$$

Consequently, we have $`b>r_0`$ and $`br_0`$ for the nearly flat regime $`r_0>>\mathrm{r}_{}`$. Assumption A2 yields that $`|\mathrm{tan}\vartheta |r_0/D_L<<1`$, so

$$\mathrm{tan}\vartheta \vartheta .$$
(4)
Before discussing how our assumptions affect the term $`\mathrm{tan}(\widehat{\alpha }\vartheta )`$ in (1), we consider the bending angle $`\widehat{\alpha }`$ under assumptions A1 and A2. The bending angle, which is not a priori assumed to be small, is given by (e.g., Weinberg 1972, p. 189; Wald 1984, p. 145):

$$\widehat{\alpha }(x_0)=2_{x_0}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dx}{\sqrt{P(x)}}\pi ,$$
(5)
where

$$P(x)=x^2[(x/x_0)^2(11/x_0)(11/x)],x_0=r_0/\mathrm{r}_{}.$$

The integral in (5) is an elliptic integral and can be expressed in terms of an elliptic integral of the first kind. In fact, set

$$P(x)=\frac{11/x_0}{x_0^2}X(x)$$

with

$$X(x)=x\left(x^3\frac{x_0^2}{11/x_0}(x1)\right).$$

The zeros of the quartic $`X(x)`$ are

$`r_1=x_0,r_2={\displaystyle \frac{x_0}{2(1+x_0)}}\left[1x_0+\sqrt{3+2x_0+x_0^2}\right],`$
$`r_2={\displaystyle \frac{x_0}{2(1+x_0)}}\left[1x_0\sqrt{3+2x_0+x_0^2}\right],r_4=0.`$
Note that $`r_1>r_2>r_3>r_4`$. It can be shown (e.g., Hancock 1958, p. 47) that

$$_{x_0}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dx}{\sqrt{X(x)}}=\frac{2}{(r_1r_3)(r_2r_4)}F(\varphi ,k),$$
(6)
where

$$F(\varphi ,k)=_0^\varphi (1k\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi )^{1/2}𝑑\varphi $$

is an elliptic integral of the first kind with arguments

$$\varphi =\mathrm{sin}^1\sqrt{\frac{r_2r_4}{r_1r_4}},k=\frac{(r_1r_4)(r_2r_3)}{(r_1r_3)(r_2r_4)}.$$

Using (6), we plot the bending angle $`\widehat{\alpha }`$ in Figure 1. In addition, Taylor expanding the integrand of in (5) yields the following expansion for the bending angle (Virbhadra & Ellis 2000, Eiroa, Romero & Torres 2002):

$$\widehat{\alpha }(x_0)=\frac{2}{x_0}+\left(\frac{15}{16}\pi 1\right)\frac{1}{x_0^2}+𝒪\left(\frac{1}{x_0^3}\right).$$
(7)
For light rays that travel directly from the source to the observe without looping around the black hole, assumption A3 yields that $`1/x_0<<1`$. By (7), the bending angle takes the standard weak-field form:

$$\widehat{\alpha }(x_0)\frac{2}{x_0}.$$

Because $`|\widehat{\alpha }|<<1`$ in this case and $`|\vartheta |<<1`$ by (4), we obtain $`|\widehat{\alpha }\vartheta |<<1`$ and, hence,

$$\mathrm{tan}(\widehat{\alpha }\vartheta )\widehat{\alpha }\vartheta .$$
(8)
For the source-to-observer rays that do not loop, we have $`1/x_0\mathrm{r}_{}/(\vartheta D_L)`$. Combined with equations (3), (4), and (8) we see that the lens equation reduces to the usual weak-field lens equation:

$$\beta =\vartheta \frac{D_{LS}}{D_S}\widehat{\alpha }(\vartheta )=\vartheta \frac{\theta _\mathrm{E}^2}{\vartheta },$$
(9)
where

$$\theta _\mathrm{E}=\sqrt{\frac{2D_{LS}\mathrm{r}_{}}{D_LD_S}}.$$
(10)
For rays that loop around the black hole at least once before arriving at the observer, the bending angle $`\widehat{\alpha }`$ is near a multiple of $`2\pi `$ (cf. Figure 1). Such light rays are close to the unstable photon orbit at radius $`3\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{g}`$ (e.g., Chandrasekhar 1992, p. 132). In this case, the bending angle has the form $`\widehat{\alpha }=2n\pi +\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\alpha }_n`$, where $`n1`$ is the number of times the light ray loops around the black hole and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\alpha }_n|<<1`$ (representing a small angular deviation from a multiple of $`2\pi `$). Consequently,

$$\mathrm{tan}(\alpha \vartheta )\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _n\vartheta .$$
(11)
Equation (11), along with A1 and A2, yields the following strong-field lens equation for rays circling near $`3\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{g}`$ (Bozza et al. 2001):

$$\beta =\vartheta \frac{D_{LS}}{D_S}\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _n.$$
(12)
We now turn to the solutions of the weak- and strong-field lens equations.

### 2.2 Einstein ring, Primary and Secondary Images

The solutions of the weak-field lens equation (9) are well known (e.g., see Petters, Levine & Wambsganss (2001), pp. 187-191, for a detailed treatment).

If $`\beta =0`$ (source is on the optical axis), then the source is lensed into a formally infinitely magnified circle, called an Einstein ring, which has an angular radius $`\theta _\mathrm{E}`$.

If $`\beta 0`$ (source is off the optical axis), then on opposite sides of the black hole there are a primary image $`\vartheta _+^{\mathrm{wf}}`$ and secondary image $`\vartheta _{}^{\mathrm{wf}}`$ of the source:

$$\vartheta _\pm ^{\mathrm{wf}}=\frac{\theta _\mathrm{E}}{2}\left[(\beta /\theta _\mathrm{E})\pm \sqrt{(\beta /\theta _\mathrm{E})^2+4}\right]\pm \theta _\mathrm{E}+\frac{\beta }{2}.$$
(13)
The primary and secondary images have magnification

$$\mu _\pm ^{\mathrm{wf}}=\frac{(\beta /\theta _\mathrm{E})^2+2}{2|\beta /\theta _\mathrm{E}|\sqrt{(\beta /\theta _\mathrm{E})^2+4}}\pm \frac{1}{2}\frac{\theta _\mathrm{E}}{2|\beta |}.$$
(14)
Note that assumption A1 was used for the approximations in (13) and (14). The total magnification is

$$\mu _{\mathrm{wf}}=\mu _+^{\mathrm{wf}}+\mu _{}^{\mathrm{wf}}=\frac{\theta _\mathrm{E}}{|\beta |}.$$

To simplify expressions like (13)and (14) that involve $`\theta _\mathrm{E}`$, we shall scale all angles as follows:

$$u=\frac{\beta }{\theta _\mathrm{E}},\theta =\frac{\vartheta }{\theta _\mathrm{E}},$$

The weak-field image positions and magnifications now become

$$\theta _\pm ^{\mathrm{wf}}=\frac{u}{2}\pm 1,\mu _\pm ^{\mathrm{wf}}=\frac{1}{2|u|},\mu _{\mathrm{wf}}=\frac{1}{|u|}.$$
(15)
Note that the angular image positions and magnifications in (15) for the weak field regime coincide with that obtained from lensing by a point mass.

### 2.3 Relativistic Einstein rings

If $`\beta =0`$, then the source is lensed into the formally infinitely magnified Einstein ring mentioned in Section 2.2, along with an infinite sequence of relativistic Einstein rings near $`3\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{g}`$. The angular radii $`\vartheta _n^E`$ of the relativistic Einstein rings are given by the solutions of the strong-field lens equation (12) for $`\beta =0`$ (Bozza et al. 2001):

$$\vartheta _n^E=\vartheta _{}\left(A_0e^{(2n+1)\pi }+B_0\right),$$
(16)
where

$$\vartheta _{}=\frac{\mathrm{r}_{}}{D_L},A_0=\sqrt{3}\left(\frac{18}{2+\sqrt{3}}\right)^2,B_0=\frac{3\sqrt{3}}{2}.$$

Note that $`\vartheta _{}`$ is approximately the angle spanned by the Schwarzschild radius. For simplicity, set

$$d_n^{}=A_0\vartheta _{}e^{(2n+1)\pi }$$

and rewrite $`\vartheta _n^E`$ as

$$\vartheta _n^E=d_n^{}+\vartheta _{}B_0.$$

Since $`\vartheta _{}<<1,`$ we have $`d_1^{}<1`$ (because $`A_0e^{3\pi }3.25\times 10^3`$). Consequently, each term in the strictly decreasing sequence $`\{d_n^{}\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ obeys

$$d_n^{}d_1^{}<1,n=1,2,\mathrm{}.$$
(17)
### 2.4 Relativistic Images

If $`\beta 0`$, then we know from Section 2.2 that on opposite sides of the black hole there are a primary image $`\vartheta _+^{\mathrm{wf}}`$ and secondary image $`\vartheta _{}^{\mathrm{wf}}`$ from light rays that travel directly (no looping around the black hole) to the observer. In addition, there are two infinite sequences (on opposite sides of the black hole) of relativistic images $`\vartheta _n^\pm `$ that are due to light rays looping $`n`$ times around the black hole near $`3\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{g}`$. The following expressions for the solutions $`\vartheta _n^\pm `$ of the strong-field lens equation (12) are convenient (Bozza et al. 2001):

$$\vartheta _n^\pm =\pm \vartheta _n^E+\frac{D_S}{D_{LS}}d_n^{}\beta .n=1,2,\mathrm{}.$$
(18)
The images $`\vartheta _n^+`$ (resp., $`\vartheta _n^{}`$) result from $`n`$ clockwise (resp., counter-clockwise) windings around the black hole.

Using (2), the magnifications of the relativistic images can be shown to be approximately as follows (Bozza et al. 2001, Eiroa, Romero & Torres 2002):

$$\mu _n^\pm =\frac{D_S}{D_{LS}}\vartheta _n^Ed_n^{}\frac{1}{|\beta |}.$$
(19)
The total magnification is then

$$\mu _\mathrm{R}=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mu _n^++\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mu _n^{}.$$

Equations (16) and (19) imply that

$$\mu _\mathrm{R}=\frac{2D_S}{|\beta |D_{LS}}\left[\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(d_n^{})^2+B_0\vartheta _{}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}d_n^{}\right].$$
(20)
By (17), both series in (20) are geometric series. Hence,

$$\mu _\mathrm{R}=\frac{2D_S\vartheta _{}^2}{D_{LS}}\frac{C_0}{|\beta |},$$
(21)
where

$$C_0=A_0\left[A_0\frac{e^{6\pi }}{1e^{4\pi }}+B_0\frac{e^{3\pi }}{1e^{2\pi }}\right].$$
(22)
Equations (18), (19), and (21) simplify to

$`\theta _n^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`\pm \theta _n^E+{\displaystyle \frac{D_S}{D_{LS}}}d_n^{}u,\theta _n^E={\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta _n^E}{\theta _\mathrm{E}}},`$ (23)
$`\mu _n^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{D_S}{D_{LS}}}\theta _n^Ed_n^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|u|}},`$ (24)
$`\mu _\mathrm{R}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2D_S\vartheta _{}^2}{D_{LS}\theta _\mathrm{E}}}{\displaystyle \frac{C_0}{|u|}}.`$ (25)
By (25), the relativistic and total magnifications for a point source are then given as follows (Bozza et al. 2001, Eiroa, Romero & Torres 2002):

$$\mu _\mathrm{R}=\mathrm{C}_\mathrm{R}\mu _{\mathrm{wf}},\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}=\mu _{\mathrm{wf}}+\mu _R=\left(1+\mathrm{C}_\mathrm{R}\right)\mu _{\mathrm{wf}},$$
(26)
where

$$\mathrm{C}_\mathrm{R}=\frac{2D_S\vartheta _{}^2C_0}{D_{LS}\theta _\mathrm{E}}=4C_0\theta _{}^3,\theta _{}=\frac{\vartheta _{}}{\theta _\mathrm{E}}.$$
(27)
Equation (26) shows that $`\mathrm{C}_\mathrm{R}`$ determines the relativistic correction to the total weak-field magnification.

We also refer interested readers to the elegant generalization by Eiroa, Romero & Torres (2002) of equations (23)—(25) to the case of a Reissner-Nordström black hole lens.

## 3 Image Centroid

In this section, we derive a formula using A1A3 that expresses the image centroid of a Schwarzschild black hole as a relativistic correction to the weak-field image centroid of a point mass lens.

### 3.1 Image Centroid Formula

The center-of-light or centroid of all the images of a source at $`u`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{cent}}=\frac{\left(\mu _+\theta _++\mu _{}\theta _{}\right)+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left(\mu _n^+\theta _n^++\mu _n^{}\theta _n^{}\right)}{\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}},$$
(28)
where $`\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}`$ is the total magnification. Since the centroid shift is

$$\delta \mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{cent}}=\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{cent}}u,$$

it suffices to study $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{cent}}`$.

We now express the image centroid as

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{cent}}=\frac{\mu _{\mathrm{wf}}}{\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}}\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{cent}}^{\mathrm{wf}}+\frac{\mu _\mathrm{R}}{\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}}\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{cent}}^\mathrm{R},$$
(29)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{cent}}^{\mathrm{wf}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{cent}}^\mathrm{R}`$ are respectively the centroids of the weak-field and relativistic images. Explicitly,

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{cent}}^{\mathrm{wf}}=\frac{\mu _+^{\mathrm{wf}}\theta _+^{\mathrm{wf}}+\mu _{}^{\mathrm{wf}}\theta _{}^{\mathrm{wf}}}{\mu _{\mathrm{wf}}}$$

and

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{cent}}^\mathrm{R}=\frac{_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mu _n^+\theta _n^++\mu _n^{}\theta _n^{}\right)}{\mu _R}.$$

By (15) and (25), the weak-field image centroid is

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{cent}}^{\mathrm{wf}}=\frac{u}{2}.$$
(30)
Recall that (30) is the weak-field image centroid for source positions near the caustic. Indeed, the full shifted image centroid due to a point mass lens is an ellipse (e.g., Høg, Novikov & Polnarev 1995,Miyamoto & Yoshi 1995,Walker 1995).

Using (23) and (24), we get

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{cent}}^\mathrm{R}=\frac{2}{\mu _\mathrm{R}}\left(\frac{D_S}{D_{LS}}\right)^2\frac{u}{|u|}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\theta _n^E(d_n^{})^2.$$

Now, observe that

$$\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\theta _n^E(d_n^{})^k=\frac{C_0(k)\vartheta _{}^{k+1}}{\theta _\mathrm{E}},k=1,2,\mathrm{},$$
(31)
where

$$C_0(k)=A_0^k\left[A_0E(k+1)+B_0E(k)\right]$$
(32)
with

$$E(k)=\frac{e^{3k\pi }}{1e^{2k\pi }}.$$

Note that $`C_0(1)=C_0`$. Equation (31) yields

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{cent}}^\mathrm{R}=\frac{2}{\mu _\mathrm{R}}\left(\frac{D_S}{D_{LS}}\right)^2\frac{C_0(2)\vartheta _{}^3}{\theta _\mathrm{E}}\frac{u}{|u|}=\frac{8C_0(2)\theta _{}^5}{\mu _\mathrm{R}}\frac{u}{|u|}.$$

Equations (26), (27), and (30) imply

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{cent}}^\mathrm{R}=\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{cent}}^{\mathrm{wf}},$$
(33)
where

$$\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{R}=4\frac{C_0(2)}{C_0(1)}\theta _{}^2.$$
(34)
Hence, the image centroid (29) simplifies to

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{cent}}=\mathrm{C}_{\mathrm{cent}}\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{cent}}^{\mathrm{wf}},$$
(35)
where

$$\mathrm{C}_{\mathrm{cent}}=\frac{1+\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{R}\mathrm{C}_\mathrm{R}}{1+\mathrm{C}_\mathrm{R}}.$$
(36)
It follows that the constants $`\mathrm{C}_\mathrm{R}`$ and $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{R}`$ determine the full relativistic correction to the image centroid due to a point mass lensing a source near the caustic.

### 3.2 Extended Source

The total magnification of an extended source $`D`$ with surface brightness $`S`$ is given by

$$\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}^{\mathrm{ext}}=\frac{_D𝑑𝐮S(𝐮)\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}(𝐮)}{_D𝑑𝐮S(𝐮)},$$

where $`𝐮=u\widehat{𝜷}`$ with $`\widehat{𝜷}=𝜷/|𝜷|`$, the unit angular vector position of the source. The spherical symmetry of the Schwarzschild black hole implies that $`\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}(𝐮)=\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}(u)`$. Consequently, equation (26) yields

$$\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}^{\mathrm{ext}}=\left(1+\mathrm{C}_\mathrm{R}\right)\mu _{\mathrm{wf}}^{\mathrm{ext}},$$
(37)
where

$$\mu _{\mathrm{wf}}^{\mathrm{ext}}=\frac{_D𝑑𝐮S(𝐮)\mu _{\mathrm{wf}}(u)}{_D𝑑𝐮S(𝐮)}$$

is the weak-field extended source total magnification. Readers are referred to Witt & Mao (1994) for a discussion of $`\mu _{\mathrm{wf}}^{\mathrm{ext}}`$ for a point mass lens.

The image centroid of the extended source is

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{cent}}^{\mathrm{ext}}=\frac{_D𝑑𝐮S(𝐮)\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{cent}}\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}(𝐮)}{_D𝑑𝐮S(𝐮)\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}(𝐮)}.$$

Equation (35) gives

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{cent}}^{\mathrm{ext}}=\mathrm{C}_{\mathrm{cent}}\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{cent}}^{\mathrm{ext},\mathrm{wf}},$$
(38)
where

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{cent}}^{\mathrm{ext},\mathrm{wf}}=\frac{_D𝑑𝐮S(𝐮)\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{cent}}^{\mathrm{wf}}(u)\mu _{\mathrm{wf}}(u)}{_D𝑑𝐮S(𝐮)\mu _{\mathrm{wf}}(u)}$$

is the weak-field extended image centroid — see Mao & Witt (1998) for a treatment of $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{cent}}^{\mathrm{ext},\mathrm{wf}}`$ with a point mass lens. Thus, as in the point source case, the quantities $`\mathrm{C}_\mathrm{R}`$ and $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{R}`$ determine the relativistic corrections to the extended source image centroid, as well as the total magnification, for a point mass lens.

## 4 Applications to the Galactic Black Hole Lens

In this section, we estimate the relativistic corrections to the weak-field total magnification and image centroid for the case of the Galactic black hole under A1A3.

We begin with estimates of some needed quantities. The constants $`C_0(1)`$ and $`C_0(2)`$ are given approximately as follows:

$$C_0(1)8.47\times 10^3,C_0(2)2.75\times 10^5.$$

For the massive black hole at the Galactic center, we have (Ghez et al. 1998):

$$M_{}2.6\times 10^6M_{},D_L8.5\mathrm{kpc}.$$

The linear and angular Schwarzschild radii of the black hole are

$$\mathrm{r}_{}5.23\times 10^2\mathrm{AU},\vartheta _{}=\frac{\mathrm{r}_{}}{D_L}6.46\mu \mathrm{as}.$$
(39)
Since the relativistic images are near $`3\mathrm{r}_{}/2`$, those on opposite sides of the black hole have angular spacings of order $`3\vartheta _{}19.38\mu \mathrm{as}`$, which is outside the resolving capabilities of near-future instruments. The expected resolution of the Space Interferometry Mission to be launched in 2009 is about $`10\mathrm{mas}`$. Hence, the source is microlensed by the strong-field region near the black hole.

The (weak-field) angular Einstein radius as a function of the lens-source distance $`x=D_{LS}`$ is given by

$$\theta _\mathrm{E}(x)=\left(\frac{2\vartheta _{}x}{D_L+x}\right)^{1/2}1.65\sqrt{\frac{x}{D_L+x}}\mathrm{as}.$$
(40)
The function $`\theta _\mathrm{E}(x)`$ has a positive derivative and so is strictly increasing — see Figure 2. The angular diameter of the Einstein ring is approximately the angular spacing between the primary and secondary images. For $`10\mathrm{pc}x100\mathrm{pc},`$ the range of the angular spacing is $`0.1\mathrm{as}2\theta _\mathrm{E}(x)0.4\mathrm{as},`$ which is at the boundary of the resolving capabilities of present day instruments.

We also have

$$\theta _{}(x)=\frac{\vartheta _{}}{\theta _\mathrm{E}(x)}3.922\times 10^6\sqrt{\frac{D_L+x}{x}}$$

and by (34) we get

$$\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{R}(x)2\times 10^{13}\left(\frac{D_L+x}{x}\right).$$
(41)
Let us now verify that assumptions A1A3 hold. We are supposing that $`|\beta |<<1`$ and $`D_{LS}10\mathrm{pc}`$, which by (39) yields $`D_{LS}/\mathrm{r}_{}3.82\times 10^7>>1,`$ so assumption A1 is satisfied. Now, the largest value $`b_{\mathrm{max}}`$ of the impact parameter of light rays from the source to the observed occurs for the rays that travel to the observer without looping around the black hole. These rays passing through the nearly flat region outside the black hole, which means that the associated impact parameter and distance of closest approach are approximately equal. Equation (13) shows that the angular positions of the closest approach of the light rays are given approximately by $`\pm \theta _\mathrm{E}`$ (since $`|\beta |<<1`$). It follows that $`b_{\mathrm{max}}`$ can be approximated by the linear Einstein ring radius, $`\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{E}(x)=D_L\theta _\mathrm{E}(x)`$ (Figure 2). The function $`x/\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{E}(x)`$ is strictly increasing with a minimum value of approximately $`x/\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{E}(x)4.38\times 10^3>>1`$ for $`x10\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c}`$ — see Figure 3. In addition, since $`\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{E}(x)`$ is also strictly increasing with maximum $`\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{E}^{\mathrm{max}}8\times 10^6D_L`$ for $`x>>D_L`$ (see (40)), it follows that $`D_L/\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{E}D_L/\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{E}^{\mathrm{max}}1.3\times 10^5>>1.`$ Consequently, assumption A2 holds. Now, since $`\mathrm{r}_{}/\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{E}(x)`$ is strictly decreasing with a maximum value of order $`10^4`$ for $`x10\mathrm{pc}`$, the primary and secondary images lie in the nearly flat region outside the black hole. In particular, assumption A3 is also satisfied.

We add that since $`\mathrm{r}_{}/x`$ is at most of order $`10^8`$ for $`x10\mathrm{pc}`$, a source at distance $`x`$ lies in a region of space that is “flatter” than the region near the linear Einstein radius $`\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{E}(x)`$ (since $`\mathrm{r}_{}/\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{E}(x)10^4`$). Furthermore, for a source star of mass $`M_{}`$ and radius $`R_{}`$, the closest it can get to the Galactic black hole without being thorn apart is given roughly by the tidal disruption radius of the source (e.g., Magorrian & Tremaine 1999):

$$\mathrm{r}_{\mathrm{tidal}}137.5\left(\frac{\eta _{}^2M_{}}{2.6\times 10^6M_{}}\right)^{1/3}\left(\frac{M_{}}{M_{}}\right)^{1/3}R_{},$$

where $`\eta _{}`$ is a parameter of order unity that depends on the model of the source. For $`M_{}M_{}`$ and $`r_{}R_{}`$, the tidal radius is then of order

$$\mathrm{r}_{\mathrm{tidal}}137.5R_{}0.64\mathrm{AU}.$$

Hence, a source at $`x10\mathrm{pc}`$ is significantly outside its tidal disruption radius.

For the Galactic black hole, equation (27) shows that the relativistic correction to the weak-field total magnification is

$$\mathrm{C}_\mathrm{R}(x)2.1\times 10^{18}\left(\frac{D_L+x}{x}\right)^{3/2}.$$
(42)
Since the derivative of $`\mathrm{C}_\mathrm{R}(x)`$ is always negative, the correction $`\mathrm{C}_\mathrm{R}(x)`$ is a strictly decreasing function of the lens-source distance $`x`$ — see Figure 4. The figure shows that the relativistic correction $`\mathrm{C}_\mathrm{R}`$ to the magnification is at most of order $`5\times 10^{14}`$ for sources with $`D_{LS}10\mathrm{pc}`$.

Turning to the relativistic image centroid, equations (41) and (42) yield that the derivative of $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{R}(x)\mathrm{C}_\mathrm{R}(x)`$ is always negative. Consequently, the function $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{R}(x)\mathrm{C}_\mathrm{R}(x)`$ is strictly decreasing with increasing lens-source distance — Figure 4. Furthermore, the figure yields that $`\mathrm{C}_\mathrm{R}(x)`$ is at most of order $`10^{14}`$ and $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{R}(x)\mathrm{C}_\mathrm{R}(x)`$ at most of order $`10^{24}`$ for $`x10\mathrm{pc}`$, so the relativistic image centroid factor (36) can be approximated as follows:

$$\mathrm{C}_{\mathrm{cent}}(x)1\mathrm{C}_\mathrm{R}(x)\mathrm{for}x10\mathrm{pc}.$$
(43)
It follows that the relativistic correction $`\mathrm{C}_\mathrm{R}`$ to the weak-field total magnification also serves as a relativistic correction to the weak-field image centroid. The value $`\mathrm{C}_\mathrm{R}(x)=1`$ corresponds to the weak-field case, which clearly holds approximately for $`x10\mathrm{pc}`$. In light of Figure 4, measurable relativistic corrections to the total magnification and image centroid due to standard gravitational lensing by the Galactic black hole would most likely require sources very close to the black hole.

## 5 Conclusion

Previous work on gravitational lensing by the black hole at the Galactic center investigated the relativistic corrections to the weak-field total magnification and image centroid to second order in $`1/x_0=2GM/(r_0c^2)`$, where $`r_0`$ is the distance of closest approach of the light ray to the black hole. It was shown recently that for a point mass lens the total magnification and image centroid shift of a point source remain unchanged by relativistic corrections of second order in $`1/x_0`$. We computed the relativistic corrections for a Schwarzschild black hole lens under assumptions A1A3. These corrections were applied to the case of the massive black hole at the Galactic center. We found that the weak-field magnification and image centroid have approximately the same relativistic correction. This correction is a strictly decreasing function of the lens-source distance $`D_{LS}`$. For $`D_{LS}10\mathrm{pc}`$, the relativistic correction is of order at most $`10^{14},`$ a minuscule correction. Hence, for standard lensing configurations, a nontrivial relativistic correction to microlensing by the Galactic black hole would likely have to come from sources deep inside the black hole’s potential well.

## Acknowledgments

Many thanks to Scott Gaudi for stimulating discussions and the referee for a helpful clarifying comment. This work was supported in part by an Alfred P. Sloan Research Fellowship and NSF Career grant DMS-98-96274.


format: text

text:
# New Magnetic Excitations in the Spin-Density-Wave of Chromium

## Abstract

Low-energy magnetic excitations of chromium have been reinvestigated with a single-$`𝑸`$ crystal using neutron scattering technique. In the transverse spin-density-wave phase a new type of well-defined magnetic excitation is found around ($`0,0,1`$) with a weak dispersion perpendicular to the wavevector of the incommensurate structure. The magnetic excitation has an energy gap of $`\omega 4`$ meV and at ($`0,0,1`$) exactly corresponds to the Fincher mode previously studied only along the incommensurate wavevector.

The spin-density-wave (SDW) in Cr is one of the most fascinating subjects in condensed matter physics. It has a history of long and continuing research. fawcett88  In spite of the simple body-centered cubic structure with a lattice constant $`a=2.88`$ Å, Cr and its alloys show interesting magnetic behaviors. Werner67 ; fawcett91  Below the Neel temperature T$`{}_{\mathrm{N}}{}^{}=311`$ K, an incommensurate antiferromagnetic structure develops due to a transverse spin-density-wave (TSDW) with the moments oriented perpendicular to the ordering wavevector $`𝐐_\pm =(2\pi /a)(0,0,1\pm \delta )`$ ($`\delta 0.048`$ at $`T=100`$ K) (see Fig. 1(a)). At $`T_{\mathrm{sf}}=121`$ K a spin-flop transition takes place to a longitudinal spin-density-wave (LSDW) phase with the moments along $`𝐐_\pm `$.

The magnetic cross section in this system also shows a surprisingly rich behavior. The magnetic excitations from these SDW ordered states emerge from the incommensurate positions with high mode-velocities (Fig. 1(a), two cones). In the TSDW phase this metallic antiferromagnet exhibits two types of magnetic fluctuations with the polarization transverse and longitudinal relative to the spin direction. Recently, using polarized neutron scattering in the TSDW phase, it was confirmed that the velocity of the transverse-mode excitations is significantly higher than the velocity of the longitudinal excitations. boeni98 .

In addition to the incommensurate scattering with large energy scale, Fincher et al. observed a resonance like scattering localized at the commensurate position ($`0,0,1`$) and at $`\omega =4`$ meV, (Fig. 1(a), open circle) in the TSDW phase. fincher79 ; fincher81  Later on Burke et al. reinvestigated the low energy excitations and concluded that the Fincher-excitation at ($`0,0,1`$) was part of dispersion curves for magnetic modes that emanate symmetrically from the ($`0,0,1\pm \delta `$) positions at the incommensurate wavevectors (Fig. 1(a), lines). burke83  Although many neutron scattering experiments have been performed around ($`0,0,1`$pynn92 ; sternlieb93 ; lorenzo94 ; sternlieb95 ; fukuda96 ; boeni98  and many interesting results were presented, no simple and conclusive explanation was obtained for the origin and details of the Fincher-Burke(FB) mode. Among them the most recent polarized beam and high-resolution measurements provide several constraints for the FB-mode: i) the mode has longitudinal polarization thus ruling out the possibility of magneto-vibrational scattering, pynn92 ; boeni98  ii) the symmetric branches for $`Q<Q_{}`$ and $`Q>Q_+`$ do not exist, sternlieb93  and iii) the dispersion below 4 meV is absent, i.e. the FB-mode has an energy gap of 4 meV. boeni02  However, there still exists substantial disagreement between different experiments, which precludes a full understanding of the magnetic excitations of Cr.

Similar to the experimental side there exist contrasting discussions between theories even in the ground state. For example, although the incommensurate ordering can be explained by the nesting properties of the electron and hole Fermi-surfaces holroyd80 , a recent density-functional investigation predicts a commensurate structure. hafner  Concerning the variety of magnetic excitations Fishman and Liu fishman96  succeeded in calculating the incommensurate excitations and assigning the longitudinal modes as being phason modes. In addition, they predicted a large number of possible interband transitions. However, since the accuracy of present-day band-calculations does not allow to calculate the low energy spectrum in Cr with high-precision, there is still no acceptable model to explain the FB-excitations.

In this paper, we report a new type of magnetic excitations in the SDW state of Cr. The low energy magnetic excitations of Cr were explored using a large single crystal with a single-Q structure. The original main target was to study the magnetic cross section at the so-called ”silent” satellites first investigated by Sternlieb et alsternlieb95  We, therefore, have taken the data near the incommensurate positions ($`\pm \delta ,0,1`$). Quite surprisingly, the well-defined gapped energy spectrum at ($`\pm \delta ,0,1`$) was also observed with a weak dispersion with $`𝐐`$ towards the Fincher excitation at ($`0,0,1`$) as shown in Fig. 1(b). Therefore, the Fincher mode has a clear dispersion perpendicular to the incommensurate wavevectors. This new observation of a gaped excitation provides new restrictions on the origin of the FB-mode and definitely buries all previous interpretations.

The inelastic neutron scattering was performed using a large cylindrical single crystal of Cr from Johnson-Matthey Co. with a diameter of 10 mm, a length of 50 mm along \[$`0,1,0`$\] direction ($`V4`$ cm3) and a mosaic $`\eta 40^{}`$ on the triple-axis spectrometer TOPAN at JRR-3M in Tokai, Japan. In order to produce a single-$`𝐐`$ sample the crystal was cooled through $`T_\mathrm{N}`$ in a field of 14 T. The field work was kindly accomplished in cooperation with the High Field Laboratory for Superconducting Materials, Tohoku University. The crystal was aligned with the \[$`1,0,0`$\] and the \[$`0,0,1`$\] crystallographic directions in the scattering plane. The \[$`0,0,1`$\] direction was selected to be parallel to $`𝐐_\pm `$. Note that due to the cylindrical shape of the single crystal along \[$`0,1,0`$\] nonmagnetic background could be reduced by narrowing the horizontal beam width. The population of single-Q domain was estimated to be more than 99 % from the intensity ratio of the magnetic satellites around the ($`0,0,1`$) and ($`1,0,0`$). The final energy of TOPAN was fixed at 14.7 meV. Two types of horizontal collimation sequence were utilized, Blank($`60^{}`$)-$`30^{}`$-$`60^{}`$-Blank($`100^{}`$) and $`30^{}`$-$`30^{}`$-$`10^{}`$-Blank($`100^{}`$) from before the monochromator to after the analyzer. The energy resolution of each collimation is evaluated to be 1.4 and 0.8 meV in FWHM, respectively. Higher order neutrons were removed by means of a pyrolytic graphite filter. Furthermore, in order to reduce the high-energy neutron background a sapphire single crystalline filter was inserted in between the first and second Soller collimators.

Typical scans for scattering vectors $`𝐐`$ along (scan A) and perpendicular (scan B) to the incommensurate vector $`𝐐_\pm `$ are shown in Figs. 2(a) and (b), respectively. As seen in Fig. 2(a), the scattering in the TSDW phase ($`T=140`$ K) is composed of the Fincher-excitation seen at around ($`0,0,1`$) and incommensurate peaks at $`(0,0,1\pm \delta `$). In this scan there exists a substantial difference in the intensities between the TSDW and LSDW phases. The broad scattering centered at ($`0,0,1`$) in the LSDW phase ($`T=100`$ K) is not due to the Fincher-mode as the intensity at ($`0,0,1`$) exhibits no appreciable energy dependence (Figs. 3(a) and 4(a)). The Fincher mode is easily observed on top of the energy independent magnetic intensity (broken line in Fig. 3(a)). On the other hand, in the scan B no remarkable difference is seen between the two phases. The Fincher-mode is therefore not observed in this scan. On this aspect many detailed discussions have already been made. Note that in the previous scans along $`𝐐_\pm `$ the weak signal from the FB-mode is difficult to detect due to the steep ”background” from the incommensurate peaks.

In order to get a clue about the origin of the FB-mode we explored the $`𝐐`$-dependence of the Fincher excitation perpendicular to $`𝐐_\pm `$ (scan (b) in the inset of Fig. 1). Some typical scans measured at $`T=140`$ K and $`T=100`$ K are shown in Fig. 3. A well-defined peak is observed in the TSDW phase at $`T=140`$ K. Quite surprisingly, the peak energy clearly moves to larger $`\omega `$ with increasing transverse momentum (see Fig. 1(b)) accompanied by a substantial decrease in the intensity. The peak-width in Fig. 3 is broader than the instrumental resolution width. It is noted that a well-defined signal was obtained due to the focusing effect of the instrumental resolution.

Because of this interesting observation we decided to map out the magnetic scattering in more detail and performed constant-$`𝐐`$ scans to construct contours. As shown in Fig. 4(a), we can get a clear excitation spectrum with high-resolution, which confirms the single-peaked Fincher excitation. However, we tuned the spectrometer with the medium collimator sequence so that we could get a resonable statistics for the contours. We note that the signal-to-noise ratios in Figs. 3(a) and 4(a) do not change so much even in the different instrumental resolutions. The intensity of the new mode as well as the Fincher-mode were evaluated by subtracting the nearly constant intensity (broken lines in Fig. 3) as described before. The resulting intensity contours are shown in Fig. 4(b). One can follow the dispersion relation out to $`\zeta 0.1`$, i.e. about twice as far as the incommensurability $`\delta `$ of the spin-density wave.

Our results establish a new magnon branch centered around the Fincher-mode at $`(0,0,1)`$ and shows a weak dispersion along the $`h`$ and $`k`$ direction, i.e. perpendicular to the magnetic ordering vector $`𝐐_\pm `$. In contrast to previous scans along the $`l`$ direction the data is rather clean because there is no strong incommensurate scattering near the ”silent” positions $`(\pm \zeta ,0,1)`$. The new mode has the following important properties: i) It has an energy gap of 4 meV and can only be observed in a relatively narrow $`𝐐`$ and $`\omega `$ range. ii) The new mode exists only in the TSDW phase demonstrating that it is only allowed due to the transverse orientation of the magnetic moments with respect to $`𝐐_\pm `$, i.e. the spin-flop transition opens a new degree of freedom for excitations. iii) The mode has the same longitudinal polarization as the Fincher-mode implying once more that it is intimately connected with the ordering of the spin-density-wave. It is clear these results are not compatible with any interpretations for the FB-mode given in the literature so far.

The non-existence of the mode in the LSDW-phase and the gap in the TSDW-phase bear some similarity to optical phonon modes in insulators that show different dispersions depending on their polarization being transverse or longitudinal with respect to the direction of propagation. One may speculate that it is possible to excite domain walls (or stripes) in the TSDW phase that require a nucleation energy of about 4 meV and propagate perpendicular to $`𝐐_\pm `$ thus causing a dispersion. This process may be energetically less favorable in the LSDW-phase.

We point out that the new mode has also some intriguing similarities to the resonance-like peaks in the dynamical magnetic susceptibility observed for the several systems with strongly correlated electrons; high-$`T_\mathrm{c}`$ cuprates such as YBa2Cu3O7-y fong96  that orders also in an incommensurate structure, and the geometrically frustrated ZnCr2O4 lee00 . We hope that our results encourage new efforts to understand the antiferromagnetic state in Cr, in particular the interplay between this new mode and the enhancement of the longitudinal incommensurate scattering and the scattering at the silent positions, which will also elucidate the common aspect of magnetic excitations in strongly correlated electron systems.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank S. H. Lee, T. M. Rice, R. Pynn and J. M. Tranquada for stimulated discussions. The present research was supported by the U.S.-Japan Cooperative Neutron-Scattering Program. The work at Tohoku and Kyoto was supported by the Ministry of Monbu-Kagaku-shou of Japan, and the Core Research for Evolutional Science and Technology Project. Work at Brookhaven is supported by the Division of Material Sciences, U.S. Department of Energy under contract DE-AC02-76CH00016.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The central problem is to arrange $`N`$ $`n`$-dimensional subspaces of $`R^m`$ so they are as far apart as possible. Numerous constructions and bounds were given in ,  (see also ). In the present paper we give an algebraic framework for constructing such arrangements that explains all the examples constructed or conjectured in .

The two main constructions obtained by these methods are stated in Theorems 1 and 2. Theorem 3 describes an unrelated construction which yields another infinite family of optimal packings. Table I at the end of the paper summarizes the parameters of the packings obtained in dimensions up to 128.

$`G(m,n)`$ will denote the Grassmannian space of $`n`$-dimensional subspaces of $`R^m`$. We shall refer to the elements of $`G(m,n)`$ as $`n`$-dimensional planes, or simply planes. For reasons discussed in , we define the distance between two $`n`$-dimensional planes $`P,Q`$ in $`R^m`$ by

$$d(P,Q)=\sqrt{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1+\mathrm{}+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _n},$$
(1)
where $`\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _n`$ are the principal angles111footnotetext: , p. 584. between $`P`$ and $`Q`$. For given values of $`m,n,N`$ we wish to find the best packings of $`N`$ planes in $`G(m,n)`$, that is, subsets $`𝒫=\{P_1,\mathrm{},P_N\}G(m,n)`$ such that $`d(𝒫)=\mathrm{min}_{ij}d(P_i,P_j)`$ is maximized ($`d(𝒫)`$ is called the minimal distance of the packing). We refer to  for applications and earlier references.

It was shown in  that $`G(m,n)`$ equipped with the metric (1) has an isometric embedding in $`R^D,D=(m1)(m+2)/2`$, obtained by representing each plane $`PG(m,n)`$ by the orthogonal projection from $`R^m`$ to $`P`$. If $`A`$ is an $`n\times m`$ generator matrix for $`P`$, whose rows are orthonormal vectors spanning $`P`$, then the projection is represented by the matrix $`\mathrm{\Pi }_P=A^tA`$, where $`t`$ denotes transposition. $`\mathrm{\Pi }_P`$ is an $`m\times m`$ symmetric idempotent matrix with trace $`n`$, and so lies in $`R^D`$. All such $`\mathrm{\Pi }_P`$ for $`PG(m,n)`$ lie on a sphere of radius $`\sqrt{n(mn)/m}`$ in $`R^D`$. Furthermore, if two planes $`P,QG(m,n)`$ are represented by projection matrices $`\mathrm{\Pi }_P,\mathrm{\Pi }_Q`$ then

$$d^2(P,Q)=n\text{trace}\mathrm{\Pi }_P\mathrm{\Pi }_Q=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Pi }_P\mathrm{\Pi }_Q^2,$$
(2)
where222footnotetext: , p. 56 $`||||`$ denotes the $`L_2`$ or Frobenius norm of a matrix (, Theorem 5.1).

It follows from this embedding that if $`𝒫`$ is a packing of $`N`$ planes in $`G(m,n)`$ then

$$d(𝒫)^2\frac{n(mn)}{m}\frac{N}{N1}$$
(3)
(the “simplex bound”). 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 planes form a regular equatorial simplex (, Cor. 5.2). Also, for $`N>D+1`$,

$$d(𝒫)^2\frac{n(mn)}{m}$$
(4)
(the “orthoplex bound”). Equality requires $`N2D=(m1)(m+2)`$, and occurs if the $`N`$ points form a subset of the $`2D`$ vertices of a regular orthoplex (generalized octahedron). If $`N=2D`$ this condition is also necessary (, Cor. 5.3).

## 2 The algebraic framework

The following machinery was used in  to construct Kerdock sets, among other things, and in ,  to construct quantum error-correcting codes. 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 basic 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

$$B(\overline{X}(a)\overline{Y}(b),\overline{X}(a^{})\overline{Y}(b^{}))=ab^{}+a^{}b.$$
(5)
Then $`(\overline{E},Q)`$ is an orthogonal vector space of type $`\mathrm{\Omega }^+(2i,2)`$ and maximal Witt index (cf. ).

The normalizer of $`E`$ in $`𝒪`$ is a certain Clifford group $`L`$, of order

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

(cf. \[CCKS\], Section 2). $`L`$ 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 present problem, 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 , .

## 3 The construction from totally singular subspaces

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 (5) 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

$$(X)=\{e_v^{}=\frac{1}{2^{i/2}}\underset{uU}{}(1)^{uv}e_u:vU\}$$
(6)
and

$$(Y)=\{e_u:uU\},$$
(7)
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 $`(T)`$.

We can now state our first main construction for Grassmannian packings.

### Theorem 1.

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.

### Proof.

There are

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

choices for $`\overline{S}`$ (, Lemma 9.4.1) and each $`\overline{S}`$ yields $`2^{ik}`$ planes.

We compute the distance between two planes from (2). Suppose $`P_j`$ is a $`2^k`$-dimensional invariant subspace of $`V`$ corresponding to the character $`\chi _j`$ of the subgroup $`S_jE`$, for $`j=1,2`$. We may assume $`IS_1S_2`$ and $`\chi _1(I)=\chi _2(I)=1`$. Then

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_j=\frac{1}{|S_j|}\underset{gS_j}{}\chi _j(g)g𝒪$$

is the orthogonal projection onto $`P_j`$. Also

$`\text{trace}(\mathrm{\Pi }_1\mathrm{\Pi }_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|S_1||S_2|}}{\displaystyle \underset{g_1S_1}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{g_2S_2}{}}\chi _1(g_1)\chi _2(g_2)\text{trace}(g_1g_2)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|S_1||S_2|}}{\displaystyle \underset{g_1S_1S_2}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{g_2=\pm g_1^1}{}}\chi _1(g_1)\chi _2(g_2)\text{trace}(g_1g_2)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{|S_1||S_2|}}{\displaystyle \underset{g_1S_1S_2}{}}\chi _1(g_1)\chi _2(g_1^1)\text{trace}(I)`$
(8)
$`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}{\displaystyle \frac{2|S_1S_2|2^i}{|S_1||S_2|}},\hfill & \text{if }\chi _1=\chi _2\text{ on }S_1S_2\hfill \\ & \\ 0,\hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}`$ (10)
This implies from (2) that

$$d^2(P_1,P_2)=\{\begin{array}{cc}2^k\frac{|\overline{S_1S_2|}}{|S_1||S_2|}2^i\hfill & \text{if }\chi _1=\chi _2\text{ on }S_1S_2\hfill \\ & \\ 2^k\hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$

So if $`S_1=S_2`$ and $`\chi _1\chi _2`$ the planes are orthogonal and at distance $`2^{k/2}`$; otherwise $`S_1S_2`$, $`|\overline{S_1S_2}|2^{ik1}`$, and their distance satisfies

$$d^22^k2^{k1}=2^{k1},$$

as claimed. $`\mathrm{}`$

The principal angles $`\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _{2^k}`$ between any two planes in the packing may be found by a similar calculation, using the fact that the singular values of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1\mathrm{\Pi }_2`$ are $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{2^k}`$ together with $`2^i2^k`$ zeros. It turns out that the principal angles are either all equal to $`\pi /2`$, or else $`N_1`$ of them are equal to arccos $`2^{r/4}`$ and $`2^kN_1`$ are equal to $`\pi /2`$, where $`r`$ is the rank of $`Q`$ on $`\overline{S}_1\overline{S}_2`$ and

$$N_1=2^{2ki+r/2}|\overline{S}_1\overline{S}_2|.$$

### 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).444footnotetext: The group of the Barnes-Wall lattice in dimension $`2^i`$ is a subgroup $`G`$ of index 2 in $`L`$. This lattice can therefore be constructed by taking unit vectors along the coordinate frame $`(Y)`$, forming their images under $`G`$ and then taking their integral closure.

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

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

planes in $`G(2^i,2^{i1})`$ with $`d^2=2^{i2}`$ that is the main result of . These packings meet the orthoplex bound of (4) and are therefore optimal. (We do not know if any of the other examples are optimal. Even if not optimal as Grassmannian packings, they may be optimal subject to constraints on the spectrum of distances between planes – compare Prop. 3.12 of \[CKSS\].) 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 plane 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 parameters of all the packings obtained from the theorem in dimensions up to 128 can be seen in Table I below.

Many other packings can be obtained from the images under $`L`$ of other starting planes, and still more by replacing $`L`$ by smaller groups. We mention just one such family. With the $`m=2^i`$ coordinate vectors $`e_uV`$ arranged in lexicographic order, let $`(m,n)`$ denote the packing in $`G(m,n)`$ obtained from the images under $`L`$ of the plane spanned by the first $`n`$ coordinate vectors. The $`(2^i,2^k)`$ are the packings described in Theorem 1. In particular, $`(2^i,2^{i2})`$ contains $`\text{“sevenrm1}\text{/}\text{“sevenrm3}f(i)f(i1)`$ planes and has $`d^2=2^{i3}`$. The numerical evidence (see the entries marked “(1a)” in Table I) suggests that $`(2^i,3.2^{i3})`$ contains $`\text{“sevenrm1}\text{/}\text{“sevenrm3}f(i)f(i1)f(i2)`$ planes and has $`d^2=2^{i4}`$, and that $`(2^i,5.2^{i4})`$ contains $`\text{“sevenrm1}\text{/}\text{“sevenrm3}f(i)f(i1)f(i2)f(i3)`$ planes and has $`d^2=2^{i5}`$.

## 4 Spreads and clique-finding

The packings constructed in Section 3 contains very large numbers of planes. Smaller packings can be obtained by using only some of the totally singular spaces.

### Theorem 2.

Suppose a set of $`M`$ totally singular $`(ik)`$-subspaces $`\overline{S}`$ of $`\overline{E}`$ can be found such that any pair intersect in a space of dimension at most $`\mathrm{}`$. Then the set of invariant subspaces of all the preimages $`SE`$ is a packing of $`2^{ik}M`$ planes in $`G(2^i,2^k)`$ with minimal distance satisfying

$$d^22^k2^{2k+\mathrm{}i}.$$
(11)
### Proof.

The bound on the minimal distance follows from (3). Equality holds in (11) if and only if some pair of the subspaces intersect in a subspace of dimension exactly $`\mathrm{}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

### Examples.

(a) An orthogonal spread , ,  is a partition of the nonzero totally singular points of $`\overline{E}`$ into $`2^{i1}+1`$ totally singular $`i`$-spaces. Such a partition exists if and only if $`i`$ is even (the construction is closely related to Kerdock codes), and then Theorem 2 applies with $`M=2^{i1}+1`$, $`k=\mathrm{}=0`$, producing $`2^i(2^{i1}+1)`$ lines in $`G(2^i,1)`$ with minimal angle arccos $`2^{i/2}`$.

(b) More generally, a spread (, Theorem 4.1.1) in a projective space $`PG(s,q)`$ is a partition of the points into copies of $`PG(r,q)`$, and exists if and only if $`r+1`$ divides $`s+1`$. Suppose now $`i`$ is even and $`j`$ divides $`i`$. If we take every totally singular $`i`$-space in an orthogonal spread and partition the nonzero points into copies of a $`PG(j1,2)`$, using a spread, we obtain $`M=(2^i1)/(2^j1)`$ totally singular $`j`$-spaces in $`\overline{E}`$ which meet only in the zero vector. This produces a packings of $`2^j(2^{i1}+1)(2^i1)/(2^j1)`$ planes in $`G(2^i,2^{ij})`$ with $`d^2=2^{ij}2^{i2j}`$.

In particular, because $`i`$ is even we can always take $`j=2`$, obtaining $`4(2^{i1}+1)(2^i1)/3`$ planes in $`G(2^i,2^{i2})`$ with $`d^2=3.2^{i4}`$. These packings meet the orthoplex bound of (4).

(c) When the general constructions in (a) and (b) are not applicable, or do not give the desired parameters, we may always resort to clique-finding. We form a graph whose nodes represent all totally singular $`(ik)`$-spaces $`\overline{S}\overline{E}`$, with an edge joining two nodes if the corresponding spaces intersect in a space of dimension at most $`\mathrm{}`$, and search for a maximal clique. Theorem 2 gives the parameters of the resulting packing.

For example, when $`i=3,k=1,\mathrm{}=0`$, the graph on 2-spaces has 105 nodes and contains maximal cliques of size 10, producing packings of 40 planes in $`G(8,2)`$ with $`d^2=1.5`$. These are suboptimal however, since packings of 44 planes in $`G(8,2)`$ with $`d^2=1.5`$ were obtained in .

For $`i=4`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{}=0`$, the graph on 3-spaces has 2025 nodes and contains cliques of size 17 (which is probably maximal), leading to packings of 136 planes in $`G(16,2)`$ with $`d^2=1.75`$. For $`\mathrm{}=1`$ the graph contains cliques of size at least 130, giving 1040 planes in $`G(16,2)`$ with $`d^2=1.5`$. We do not know if these are optimal.

Instead of orthogonal spreads in real space, we can also make use of their analogues in complex or quaternionic space. Since the packings obtained do not seem especially good we give only a summary.

(d) A symplectic spread is the complex analogue of an orthogonal spread, and leads to a family of $`2^{i1}(2^{i1}+1)`$ vectors in $`C^{2^{i1}}`$ whose angles are $`\pi /2`$ or arccos $`2^{(i1)/2}`$, for $`i2`$ (, Theorem 5.6). This produces packings of $`2^{i1}(2^{i1}+1)`$ planes in $`G(2^i,2)`$ with $`d^2=22^{(i2)}`$.

(e) In a similar way, Kantor  constructs a family of $`2^{i2}(2^{i1}+1)`$ lines in quaternionic space of dimension $`2^{i2}`$ whose angles are $`\pi /2`$ or arccos $`2^{(i2)/2}`$, for all even $`i4`$. This produces packings of $`2^{i2}(2^{i1}+1)`$ planes in $`G(2^i,4)`$ with $`d^2=42^{(i2)})`$.

## 5 An infinite family of packings meeting the simplex bound

A packing of 28 planes in $`G(7,3)`$ meeting the simplex bound of (3) was given in . This may be generalized as follows.

Let $`p`$ be a prime which is either 3 or congruent to $`1`$ modulo 8, so that a Hadamard matrix $`H`$ of order $`(p+1)/2`$ exists. Let $`Q=\{q_1,\mathrm{},q_{(p1)/2}\}`$ denote the nonzero quadratic residues modulo $`p`$, and $`R=\{r_1,\mathrm{},r_{(p1)/2}\}`$ the nonresidues. The entries of $`H`$ will be denoted by $`H_{s,t}`$, for $`0s,t(p1)/2`$, where we assume $`H_{s,0}=H_{0,t}=1`$ for all $`s,t`$. We will construct a packing in $`G(p,\frac{p1}{2})`$. Let $`e_s(0sp1)`$ be coordinate vectors in $`R^p`$, let $`C=(1+\sqrt{p+2})/\sqrt{p+1}`$, and fix an element $`kR`$. Let $`P_t(0t(p1)/2)`$ be the $`(p1)/2`$-dimensional plane spanned by the vectors

$$e_{q_s}+H_{st}Ce_{kq_s},1s\frac{p1}{2}.$$

For each $`P_t`$ we obtain $`p1`$ further planes by applying the cyclic permutation of coordinates $`e_ie_{i+1(modp)}`$, for a total of $`p(p+1)/2`$ planes.

### Theorem 3.

The above construction produces a packing of $`p(p+1)/2`$ planes in $`G(p,\frac{p1}{2})`$ in which the distance between every pair of planes satisfies

$$d^2=\frac{(p+1)^2}{4(p+2)}.$$

This packing meets the simplex bound of (3) and is therefore optimal.

### Sketch of proof.

The principal angles between two planes in the same orbit under the cyclic shift, for example $`P_0`$ and $`P_1`$, are $`0(\frac{p3}{4}`$ times) and arcsin $`2C/(1+C^2)`$ $`(\frac{p+1}{4}`$ times), and so

$$d^2(P_0,P_1)=\frac{p+1}{4}\frac{4C^2}{(1+C^2)^2}=\frac{(p+1)^2}{4(p+2)}.$$
(12)
If the two planes are in different orbits, it is best to compute the corresponding projection matrices and then use (2) to compute the distance, making use of Perron’s theorem  on quadratic residues. Again the distance is given by (12). We omit the details of this calculation. $`\mathrm{}`$

For example, when $`p=7`$ and $`C=\sqrt{2}`$, taking $`k=3`$ we find that the planes $`P_0,\mathrm{},P_3`$ are generated by

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \\ \text{ }\text{ }\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}\begin{array}{ccccccc}0& 1& 2& 3& 4& 5& 6\\ 0& 1& 0& \pm C& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& \pm C\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& \pm C& 0\end{array}\begin{array}{c}\\ \text{ }\text{ }\\ \end{array},$$

where the product of the signs is $`+1`$ (as given in ). The full set of 28 planes is obtained by cycling the seven coordinates. Changing $`k`$ to 6 we obtain a packing with the same distances but in which some of the principal angles have changed, showing that the packings of Theorem 3 are not unique.

Packings obtained from Theorem 3 are labeled “(3)” in Table I.

## 6 A table

Table I lists the parameters of the packings constructed in this paper in dimensions up to 128. When better packings with same parameters were given in , these are also mentioned. In the last column, “(1)” refers to Theorem 1, “(1a)” to the packings described at the end of Section 3, “(2a)”$`,\mathrm{},`$ “(2e)” to the examples following Theorem 2, and “(3)” to Theorem 3.

We must stress however that a very large number of other packings are known, especially in dimensions up to 16: see the constructions and tables in  and .

Table I. Parameters of Grassmannian Packings constructed in this paper

| $`m`$ | $`n`$ | $`N`$ | $`d^2`$ | source |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 3 | 1 | 6 | 4/5 | (3) |
| 4 | 1 | 12 | 3/4 | (2a) |
| 4 | 1 | 24 | 1/2 | (1) |
| 4 | 1 | 24 | 0.5182$`\mathrm{}`$ |  |
| 4 | 2 | 6 | 1 | (2d) |
| 4 | 2 | 6 | 6/5 |  |
| 4 | 2 | 18 | 1 | (1) |
| 7 | 3 | 28 | 16/9 | (3) |
| 8 | 1 | 240 | 1/2 | (1) |
| 8 | 2 | 20 | 3/2 | (2d) |
| 8 | 2 | 20 | 1.5789$`\mathrm{}`$ |  |
| 8 | 2 | 40 | 3/2 | (2c) |
| 8 | 2 | 44 | 3/2 |  |
| 8 | 2 | 420 | 1 | (1) |
| 8 | 3 | 1680 | 1/2 | (1a) |
| 8 | 4 | 70 | 2 | (1) |
| 16 | 1 | 144 | 15/16 | (2a) |
| 16 | 1 | 4320 | 1/2 | (1) |
| 16 | 2 | 72 | 7/4 | (2d) |
| 16 | 2 | 136 | 7/4 | (2c) |
| 16 | 2 | 1040 | 3/2 | (2c) |
| 16 | 2 | 16200 | 1 | (1) |
| 16 | 3 | 151200 | 1/2 | (1a) |
| 16 | 4 | 72 | 15/4 | (2e) |
| 16 | 4 | 180 | 3 | (2b) |
| 16 | 4 | 6300 | 2 | (1) |
| 16 | 5 | 453600 | 1/2 | (1a) |
| 16 | 6 | 113400 | 1 | (1a) |
| 16 | 7 | 64800 | 1/2 | (1a) |
| 16 | 8 | 270 | 4 | (1) |
| 23 | 11 | 276 | 144/25 | (3) |
| 31 | 15 | 496 | 256/33 | (3) |
| 32 | 1 | 146880 | 1/2 | (1) |
| 32 | 2 | 272 | 15/8 | (2d) |
| 32 | 2 | 1138320 | 1 | (1) |
| 32 | 4 | 948600 | 2 | (1) |
| 32 | 8 | 94860 | 4 | (1) |
| 32 | 16 | 1054 | 8 | (1) |

Table I. cont’d. Parameters of Grassmannian Packings constructed in this paper

| $`m`$ | $`n`$ | $`N`$ | $`d^2`$ | source |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 47 | 23 | 1128 | 576/49 | (3) |
| 64 | 1 | 2112 | 63/64 | (2a) |
| 64 | 1 | 9694080 | 1/2 | (1) |
| 64 | 2 | 1056 | 31/16 | (2d) |
| 64 | 2 | 152681760 | 1 | (1) |
| 64 | 4 | 1056 | 63/16 | (2e) |
| 64 | 4 | 262951920 | 2 | (1) |
| 64 | 8 | 2376 | 7 | (2b) |
| 64 | 8 | 56346840 | 4 | (1) |
| 64 | 16 | 2772 | 12 | (2b) |
| 64 | 16 | 1460844 | 8 | (1) |
| 64 | 32 | 4158 | 16 | (1) |
| 71 | 35 | 2556 | 1296/73 | (3) |
| 79 | 39 | 3160 | 1600/81 | (3) |
| 103 | 51 | 5356 | 2704/105 | (3) |
| 127 | 63 | 8128 | 4096/129 | (3) |
| 128 | 1 | 1260230400 | 1/2 | (1) |
| 128 | 2 | 4160 | 63/32 | (2d) |
| 128 | 2 | 40012315200 | 1 | (1) |
| 128 | 4 | 140043103200 | 2 | (1) |
| 128 | 8 | 62019088560 | 4 | (1) |
| 128 | 16 | 3445504920 | 8 | (1) |
| 128 | 32 | 22882860 | 16 | (1) |
| 128 | 64 | 16510 | 32 | (1) |


text:
# Generalized (s-Parameterized) Weyl Transformation

## 1 Introduction

The Moyal transformation in the context of the Weyl transformation  (the former being a particular case of the latter) was addressed by B.Leaf  who departing directly from quantum mechanics derived the Weyl-transform $`A_w(𝐐,𝐊)`$ of the quantum operator $`A(𝐐,𝐊)`$ and investigated the properties of such a transform. Here $`𝐐`$ and $`𝐊`$ denote the eigenvalues of the coordinate $`𝐪`$ and momentum $`𝐤`$ operators respectively. The well-known Moyal formula for the phase-space distribution function  readily followed from the derived expressions . However the work  did not yield a more general $`s`$-parameterized transformation unifying different quantization rules.

Usually this transformation is introduced ”by hand” (cf. ,, . A closer inspection of Leaf’s approach shows that it allows one to naturally arrive at the generalized ( in a sense of $`s`$-parameterization) Weyl-Wigner-Groenewold-Moyal transformation without a need for $`\mathrm{𝑎𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑟𝑖}`$ introduction of the parameter $`s`$. This is associated with the fact that a shift of the operators $`𝐊`$ and $`𝐐`$ ($`𝐊,𝐐𝐊^{},𝐐^{}`$) under the only condition that the resulting transformation to be canonical automatically generates an arbitrary parameter $`s`$ entering the resulting transformation. In Ref.  this shift was chosen in such a way as to satisfy the canonicity by a special choice of the numerical coefficients entering the transformation $`𝐊,𝐐𝐊^{},𝐐^{}`$ and ensuring the value of the parameter $`s=0.`$

## 2 Generalized Weyl Transformation

Let us consider the Hilbert space of a quantum-mechanical system having $`n`$ degrees of freedom. This space is spanned by the eigenkets $`|𝐐>`$ and $`|𝐊>`$ of the Cartesian coordinate operator $`𝐪(q_1,q_2,\mathrm{},q_n)`$ and the conjugate momentum $`𝐩=(\mathrm{}/i)(/q)=2\pi \mathrm{}𝐤(k_1,k_2,\mathrm{},k_n)`$ \[with the commutation relations $`q_ik_jk_iq_j=(i/2\pi )\delta _{ij};i,j=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$ \]:

$$𝐤|𝐊=(2\pi \mathrm{})^1\frac{\mathrm{}}{i}\frac{}{q}|𝐊=𝐊|𝐊$$
(1)
which means

$$|𝐊=e^{2\pi i𝐪𝐊};|𝐐=\delta (𝐪𝐐)$$
(2)
The respective completeness relations are

$$𝑑𝐐|𝐐𝐐|=\mathrm{𝟏},𝑑𝐊|𝐊𝐊|=\mathrm{𝟏}$$
(3)
Employing (1) and (2) we find that the scalar product $`<𝐐|𝐊>`$ is

$$𝐐|𝐊=e^{2\pi i𝐪𝐊}\delta (𝐪𝐐)𝑑𝐪=𝐞^{\mathrm{𝟐}\pi \mathrm{𝐢𝐐}𝐊}$$
(4)
We represent an arbitrary quantum-mechanical operator $`A`$ in the Hilbert space using the completeness relation (3):

$$A\mathrm{}𝑑𝐐^{}𝑑𝐐^{\prime \prime }𝑑𝐊^{}𝑑𝐊^{\prime \prime }|𝐐^{\prime \prime }𝐊^{\prime \prime }|𝐊^{\prime \prime }𝐊^{\prime \prime }|A|𝐊^{}𝐊^{}|𝐐^{}𝐐^{}|$$
(5)
Now we perform a linear transformation from the variables $`𝐐^{},𝐐^{\prime \prime },𝐊^{},𝐊^{\prime \prime }`$ to new variables $`𝐊,𝐐,𝐮,𝐯`$ according to the following

$`Q_i^{\prime \prime }=Q_i+\alpha _iv_i,Q_i^{}=Q_i+\beta _iv_i`$ (6)
$`K_i^{\prime \prime }=K_i+\gamma _iu_i,K_i^{}=K_i+\delta _iu_i;i=1,2..,.n`$ (7)
where $`\alpha _i,\beta _i,\gamma _i`$ and $`\delta _i`$ are some constants to be determined from an additional condition. If we require this transformation to be $`canonical`$ then its Jacobian must be $`1`$ yielding the following relations:

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{i=n}{}}(\alpha _i\beta _i)(\gamma _i\delta _i)=1$$
(8)
Note that in  from the very beginning the coefficients are chosen in such a way as to identically satisfy the canonicity condition: $`\alpha _i=\gamma _i=1/2;\beta _i=\delta _i=1/2`$.

We rewrite identity (5) taking into account the transformation of variables (6),(7):

$`A{\displaystyle \mathrm{}𝑑𝐐𝑑𝐊𝑑𝐮𝑑𝐯𝐐+\alpha 𝐯𝐐+\alpha 𝐯𝐊+\gamma 𝐮}`$
$`\times 𝐊+\gamma 𝐮A𝐊+\delta 𝐮𝐊+\delta 𝐮|𝐐+\beta 𝐯𝐐+\beta 𝐯`$ (9)
where according to (4)

$`𝐐+\alpha 𝐯𝐊+\delta 𝐮𝐐+\beta 𝐯=`$
$`exp\{2\pi i[{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}(\gamma _i\delta _i)u_iQ_i+(\alpha _i\beta _i)v_iK_i+u_iv_i(\alpha _i\gamma _i\beta _i\delta _i)]\}`$
Inserting this expression into Eq.(9) we get

$`A{\displaystyle \mathrm{}𝑑𝐐𝑑𝐊𝑑𝐮𝑑𝐯𝐊+\gamma 𝐮A𝐊+\delta 𝐮𝐐+\alpha 𝐯𝐐+\beta 𝐯}`$
$`exp\{2\pi i[{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}(\gamma _i\delta _i)u_iQ_i+(\alpha _i\beta _i)v_iK_i+u_iv_i(\alpha _i\gamma _i\beta _i\delta _i)]\}`$ (10)
By a simple change of variables we can incorporate $`u_iv_i(\alpha _i\gamma _i\beta _i\delta _i)`$ into variables $`Q_i`$. To this end we represent the power of the exponent in (10)as follows

$`(\gamma _i\delta _i)u_iQ_i+(\alpha _i\beta _i)v_iK_i+u_iv_i(\alpha _i\gamma _i\beta _i\delta _i)=`$
$`(\gamma _i\delta _i)u_i[Q_i+v_i{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _i\gamma _i\beta _i\delta _i}{\gamma _i\delta _i}}]+(\alpha _i\beta _i)v_iK_i`$ (11)
Introducing a new variable

$$Q_i^o=Q_i+v_i\frac{\alpha _i\gamma _i\beta _i\delta _i}{\gamma _i\delta _i},$$

dropping the superscript $`o`$, and using the fact that

$$exp\{2\pi 𝐤𝐚\}𝐐>=𝐐+𝐚>$$

we obtain the following representation of the operator $`A`$:

$$A=\mathrm{}𝑑𝐐𝑑𝐊A_w(\gamma ,\delta ,𝐐,𝐊)F(\alpha ,\beta ,𝐐,𝐊)$$
(12)
where

$$A_w(\gamma ,\delta ,𝐐,𝐊)=𝑑𝐮e^{\mathit{2}\pi i_{k=\mathit{1}}^n(\gamma _k\delta _k)u_kQ_k}𝐊+\gamma 𝐮A𝐊+\delta 𝐮,$$
(13)
$$F(\alpha ,\beta ,r,𝐐,𝐊)=𝑑𝐯e^{\mathit{2}\pi i(\alpha \beta )𝐯(𝐤𝐊)}𝐐+\mathrm{𝐫𝐯}𝐐+\mathrm{𝐫𝐯}$$
(14)
and

$$𝐫=r_i=(r_1,r_2,\mathrm{},r_n)=\frac{\gamma _i}{\gamma _i\delta _i}(\beta _i\alpha _i)$$

The Weyl transformation is characterized by the properties of the operator $`F(\alpha ,\beta ,r,𝐐,𝐊).`$ To investigate it further we use the following representation of the projection operator $`𝐐+\mathrm{𝐫𝐯}𝐐+\mathrm{𝐫𝐯}`$:

$`𝐐+\mathrm{𝐫𝐯}𝐐+\mathrm{𝐫𝐯}=\delta (𝐪𝐐\mathrm{𝐫𝐯})=`$
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐰e^{2\pi i{\scriptscriptstyle w_j(q_jQ_j)}}e^{2\pi i{\scriptscriptstyle r_jw_jv_j}}}`$ (15)
As a result we get from (14)

$$F(\alpha ,\beta ,r,𝐐,𝐊)=𝑑𝐰e^{2\pi i{\scriptscriptstyle w_j(q_jQ_j)}}e^{2\pi i{\scriptscriptstyle r_jw_jv_j}}𝑑𝐯e^{2\pi i{\scriptscriptstyle (\alpha _j\beta _j)v_j(k_jK_j)}}$$
(16)
Because both $`𝐪`$ and $`𝐤`$ are hermitian the last expression demonstrates that $`F(\alpha ,\beta ,r,𝐐,𝐊)`$ is also Hermitian.

Since

$$(\frac{}{Q_j})^m𝑑𝐰e^{2\pi i{\scriptscriptstyle w_j(q_jQ_j)}}=(2\pi i)^m𝑑𝐰(w_j)^me^{2\pi i{\scriptscriptstyle w_j(q_jQ_j)}}$$

and

$`({\displaystyle \frac{}{K_j}})^m{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐯e^{2\pi i{\scriptscriptstyle (\alpha _j\beta _j)v_j(k_jK_j)}}}=`$
$`(2\pi i)^m(\alpha _j\beta _j)^m{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐯(v_j)^me^{2\pi i{\scriptscriptstyle (\alpha _j\beta _j)v_j(k_jK_j)}}}`$
Eq.(16) yields

$`F(\alpha ,\beta ,r,𝐐,𝐊)=`$
$`e^{\frac{1}{2\pi i}{\scriptscriptstyle {\scriptscriptstyle \frac{r_j}{\alpha _j\beta _j}}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{Q_j}}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{K_j}}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐯e^{2\pi i{\scriptscriptstyle (\alpha _j\beta _j)v_j(k_jK_j)}}𝑑𝐰e^{2\pi i{\scriptscriptstyle w_j(q_jQ_j)}}}`$ (17)
By introducing new variables $`k_j^o=k_j(\alpha _j\beta _j),K_j^o=K_j(\alpha _j\beta _j)`$ the parameters $`(\alpha _j\beta _j)`$ are ”absorbed” by these variables, which means that without any loss of generality we can set

$$(\alpha _j\beta _j)=1.$$

Therefore the operator $`F(\alpha ,\beta ,r,𝐐,𝐊)`$ becomes

$$F(𝐫,𝐐,𝐊)=e^{\frac{\mathit{1}}{\mathit{2}\pi i}{\scriptscriptstyle r_j{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{Q_j}}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{K_j}}}}𝑑𝐯e^{\mathit{2}\pi i{\scriptscriptstyle v_j(k_jK_j)}}𝑑𝐰e^{\mathit{2}\pi i{\scriptscriptstyle w_j(q_jQ_j)}}$$
(18)
Since

$$𝑑𝐰e^{2\pi i{\scriptscriptstyle w_j(q_jQ_j)}}=\delta (𝐪𝐐);𝑑𝐯e^{2\pi i{\scriptscriptstyle v_j(k_jK_j)}}=\delta (𝐤𝐊)$$

we obtain from Eq.(18) another representation of $`F`$

$$F(𝐫,𝐐,𝐊)=e^{\frac{\mathit{1}}{\mathit{2}\pi i}{\scriptscriptstyle r_j{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{^\mathit{2}}{Q_jK_j}}}}\delta (𝐪𝐐)\delta 𝐤𝐊)$$
(19)
The last equation allows us to find an explicit expression for the Weyl-transform of the quantum operator $`A_w(\gamma ,𝐐,𝐊)`$ which we represent as follows:

$$A_w(𝐫,𝐐^{},𝐊^{})=𝑑𝐐𝑑𝐊A_w(𝐫,𝐐,𝐊)\delta (𝐐𝐐^{})\delta (𝐊𝐊^{})$$
(20)
Using (19) we calculate $`<𝐐^{}F(𝐫,𝐐,𝐊)𝐊^{}>`$:

$$𝐐^{}F(𝐫,𝐐,𝐊)𝐊^{}=𝐐^{}𝐊^{}𝐞^{\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}\pi 𝐢}{\scriptscriptstyle 𝐫_𝐣{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝐐_𝐣𝐊_𝐣}}}}\delta (𝐐^{}𝐐)\delta (𝐊^{}𝐊)$$
(21)
where we use the following identity

$$𝐐𝐐𝐐^{}\delta (𝐐^{}𝐐)𝐐^{}\delta (𝐪𝐐)𝐐^{}$$

With the help of another identity $`𝐐^{}𝐊^{}𝐊^{}𝐐^{}1`$ we get from (21)

$$\delta (𝐐^{}𝐐)\delta (𝐊^{}𝐊)=e^{\frac{i}{2\pi }{\scriptscriptstyle r_j{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{^2}{Q_j^{}K_j^{}}}}}𝐐^{}F(𝐫,𝐐,𝐊)𝐊^{}𝐊^{}𝐐^{}$$
(22)
Substitution of (22) into (20) yields

$`A_w(𝐫,𝐐^{},𝐊^{})=`$
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐐𝑑𝐊A_w(𝐫,𝐐,𝐊)e^{\frac{i}{2\pi }{\scriptscriptstyle r_j{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{^2}{Q_j^{}K_j^{}}}}}𝐐^{}F(𝐫,𝐐,𝐊)𝐊^{}𝐊^{}𝐐^{}}`$ (23)
On the other hand, from (12) follows that

$$𝐐^{}|A|𝐊^{}𝐊^{}|𝐐^{}=𝑑𝐐𝑑𝐊A_w(𝐫,𝐐,𝐊)𝐐^{}|F(𝐫,𝐐,𝐊)|𝐊^{}𝐊^{}|𝐐^{}.$$

Therefore

$`e^{\frac{i}{2\pi }{\scriptscriptstyle r_j{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{^2}{Q_j^{}K_j^{}}}}}𝐐^{}|A|𝐊^{}𝐊^{}|𝐐^{}=`$
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐐𝑑𝐊A_w(𝐫,𝐐,𝐊)𝐞^{\frac{𝐢}{\mathrm{𝟐}\pi }{\scriptscriptstyle 𝐫_𝐣{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝐐_𝐣^{}𝐊_𝐣^{}}}}}𝐐^{}|F(𝐫,𝐐,𝐊)𝐊^{}𝐊^{}|𝐐^{}}`$ (24)
Combining (23) and (24) we get the following expression for $`A_w(𝐫,𝐐,𝐊)`$:

$$A_w(𝐫,𝐐,𝐊)=e^{\frac{i}{\mathit{2}\pi }{\scriptscriptstyle r_j{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{^\mathit{2}}{Q_j^{}K_j^{}}}}}𝐐^{}|A|𝐊^{}𝐊^{}|𝐐^{}$$
(25)
If we replace $`K_jP_j/2\pi \mathrm{}`$ and take into account that for a system with $`N`$ degrees of freedom $`𝐊=(2\pi \mathrm{})^{N/2}𝐏`$ then (25) takes the following form:

$`A_w(𝐫,𝐐^{},𝐏^{})=(\mathit{2}\pi \mathrm{})^Ne^{i\mathrm{}{\scriptscriptstyle r_j{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{^\mathit{2}}{P_j^{}K_j^{}}}}}𝐐^{}A𝐏^{}𝐏^{}𝐐^{}=`$
$`(2\pi \mathrm{})^Ne^{i\mathrm{}{\scriptscriptstyle r_j{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{^2}{Q_j^{}P_j^{}}}}}𝐐^{}𝐏^{}𝐏^{}A𝐐^{}`$ (26)
To express Eq.(26) in the Schroedinger representation we consider an orthonormal set of eigenkets $`\psi _m`$ and expand the operator $`A`$ in terms of these eigenkets( eigenbras)

$$A=\underset{\mathrm{𝑚𝑛}}{}w_m\psi _mw_n^{}\psi _n$$
(27)
where $`w_m`$ are the respective coefficients of the expansion. Upon substitution of (27) into (26) we obtain the following expression

$$A_w(𝐫,𝐐,𝐏)=e^{i\mathrm{}{\scriptscriptstyle r_j{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{^\mathit{2}}{Q_jP_j}}}}[\psi ^{}(𝐐)\psi (𝐏)e^{i\mathrm{𝐏𝐐}/\mathrm{}}]$$
(28)
which is the generalization of the Moyal formula (expression (3.10) in ) which follows from (28) for the particular value of the parameter $`r_j=1/2,j=1,2,\mathrm{},N.`$

As a next step, we find the commutator $`[A,B]`$ of operators $`A`$ and $`B`$ from the expression (16) for $`F(𝐫,𝐐,𝐊)`$ where we use $`\alpha _j\beta _j=1`$. With the help of the Baker-Hausdorf identity for two operators whose commutator is a constant

$$e^{A+B}e^{[A,B]}=e^Ae^B$$

we rewrite (16)

$$F(𝐫,𝐐,𝐊)=𝑑𝐯𝑑𝐰e^{2\pi i{\scriptscriptstyle r_jw_jv_j}}e^{2\pi i{\scriptscriptstyle w_j(q_jQ_j)}}e^{2\pi i{\scriptscriptstyle v_j(k_jK_j)}}=$$

$$𝑑𝐯𝑑𝐰e^{\pi i{\scriptscriptstyle (1+2r_j)w_jv_j}}e^{2\pi i{\scriptscriptstyle (w_jQ_jv_jK_j)}}e^{2\pi i{\scriptscriptstyle (w_jq_jv_jkj)}}$$

This expression yields

$`F(𝐫,𝐐,𝐊)\delta (𝐐^{}𝐐)\delta (𝐊^{}𝐊)=`$
$`{\displaystyle }d𝐯d𝐰d𝐯^{}d𝐰^{}e^{2\pi i{\scriptscriptstyle w_jq_j}v_jk_j}e^{2\pi i{\scriptscriptstyle [Q_j(w_j^{}+w/2)+K_j(v_j^{}v/2)]}}\times `$
$`e^{2\pi i{\scriptscriptstyle [Q_j^{}(w^{}w/2)+K^{}(v^{}+v/2)]}}`$ (29)
Introducing new variables

$$v^{\prime \prime }=v^{}+v/2;v^{\prime \prime \prime }=(vv/2);$$

$$w^{\prime \prime }=(w^{}w/2);w^{\prime \prime \prime }=w^{}+w/2$$

we obtain after some (rather lengthy) algebra

$$F(𝐫,𝐐,𝐊)\delta (𝐐^{}𝐐)\delta (𝐊^{}𝐊)=e^{(i/4\pi ){\scriptscriptstyle [{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{Q_j}}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{K_j^{}}}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{K_j}}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{Q_j^{}}}]}}\times $$

$$e^{(i/4\pi ){\scriptscriptstyle (1+2r_j)[{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{Q_j}}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{K_j^{}}}+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{K_j}}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{Q_j^{}}}]}}F(𝐫,𝐐,𝐊)F(𝐫,𝐐^{},𝐊^{})$$

Using this expression we readily obtain that

$$F(𝐫,𝐐,𝐊)F(𝐫,𝐐^{},𝐊^{})=e^{(i/4\pi ){\scriptscriptstyle [{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{Q_j}}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{K_j^{}}}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{K_j}}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{Q_j^{}}}]}}\times $$

$$e^{(i/4\pi ){\scriptscriptstyle (1+2r_j)[{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{Q_j}}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{K_j^{}}}+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{K_j}}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{Q_j^{}}}]}}F(𝐫,𝐐,𝐊)\delta (𝐐^{}𝐐)\delta (𝐊^{}𝐊)$$

Now we can write the product of two $`AB`$ operators as follows

$`\mathrm{𝐴𝐵}={\displaystyle 𝑑𝐐𝑑𝐊𝑑𝐐^{}𝑑𝐊^{}A_w(𝐫,𝐐,𝐊)B_w(𝐫,𝐐^{},𝐊^{})F(𝐫,𝐐,𝐊)F(𝐫,𝐐^{},𝐊^{})}=`$
$`{\displaystyle }d𝐐d𝐊d𝐐^{}d𝐊^{}A_w(𝐫,𝐐,𝐊)B_w(𝐫,𝐐^{},𝐊^{})e^{(i/\mathit{4}\pi ){\scriptscriptstyle [{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{Q_j}}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{K_j^{}}}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{K_j}}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{Q_j^{}}}]}}\times `$
$`e^{(i/4\pi ){\scriptscriptstyle (1+2r_j)[{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{Q_j}}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{K_j^{}}}+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{K_j}}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{Q_j^{}}}]}}F(𝐫,𝐐,𝐊)\delta (𝐐^{}𝐐)\delta (𝐊^{}𝐊)=`$
$`{\displaystyle }d𝐐d𝐊d𝐐^{}d𝐊^{}F(𝐫,𝐐,𝐊)\delta (𝐐^{}𝐐)\delta (𝐊^{}𝐊)e^{(i/4\pi ){\scriptscriptstyle [{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{Q_j}}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{K_j^{}}}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{K_j}}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{Q_j^{}}}]}}\times `$
$`e^{(i/4\pi ){\scriptscriptstyle (1+2r_j)[{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{Q_j}}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{K_j^{}}}+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{K_j}}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{Q_j^{}}}]}}A_w(𝐫,𝐐,𝐊)B_w(𝐫,𝐐^{},𝐊^{})`$ (30)
Quite similarly we obtain that $`\mathrm{𝐵𝐴}`$ is

$`\mathrm{𝐵𝐴}=d𝐐d𝐊d𝐐^{}d𝐊^{}A_w(𝐫,𝐐,𝐊)B_w(𝐫,𝐐^{},𝐊^{})F(𝐫,𝐐,𝐊)F(𝐫,𝐐^{},𝐊^{})=`$
$`{\displaystyle }d𝐐d𝐊d𝐐^{}d𝐊^{}A_w(𝐫,𝐐,𝐊)B_w(𝐫,𝐐^{},𝐊^{})e^{(i/\mathit{4}\pi ){\scriptscriptstyle [{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{Q_j}}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{K_j^{}}}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{K_j}}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{Q_j^{}}}]}}\times `$
$`e^{(i/4\pi ){\scriptscriptstyle (1+2r_j)[{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{Q_j}}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{K_j^{}}}+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{K_j}}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{Q_j^{}}}]}}F(𝐫,𝐐,𝐊)\delta (𝐐^{}𝐐)\delta (𝐊^{}𝐊)=`$
$`{\displaystyle }d𝐐d𝐊d𝐐^{}d𝐊^{}F(𝐫,𝐐,𝐊)\delta (𝐐^{}𝐐)\delta (𝐊^{}𝐊)e^{(i/4\pi ){\scriptscriptstyle [{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{Q_j}}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{K_j^{}}}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{K_j}}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{Q_j^{}}}]}}\times `$
$`e^{(i/4\pi ){\scriptscriptstyle (1+2r_j)[{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{Q_j}}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{K_j^{}}}+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{K_j}}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{Q_j^{}}}]}}A_w(𝐫,𝐐,𝐊)B_w(𝐫,𝐐^{},𝐊^{})`$ (31)
Therefore the commutator $`[A,B]`$ is

$`[A,B]=\mathit{2}i{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐐𝑑𝐊𝑑𝐐^{}𝑑𝐊^{}F(𝐫,𝐐,𝐊)\delta (𝐐^{}𝐐)\delta (𝐊^{}𝐊)}`$
$`e^{(i/4\pi ){\scriptscriptstyle (1+2r_j)[{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{Q_j}}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{K_j^{}}}+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{K_j}}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{Q_j^{}}}]}}sin\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}[{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{𝐐𝐊^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{𝐐^{}𝐊}}]\}A_w(𝐫,𝐐,𝐊)B_w(𝐫,𝐐^{},𝐊^{})`$ (32)
The quantum equation of motion for an operator $`\rho `$ is

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\rho }{t}=[\rho ,H]$$
(33)
where the operator $`\rho `$ is given by Eq.(12)

$$\rho =𝑑𝐐𝑑𝐊\rho _w(t,𝐫,𝐐,𝐊)F(𝐫,𝐐,𝐊)$$
(34)
Inserting (32) and (34) into (33) we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _w(𝐫,𝐐,𝐏)}{t}}=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle }d𝐐^{}d𝐊^{}\delta (𝐐^{}𝐐)\delta (𝐊^{}𝐊)e^{\frac{i}{4\pi }{\scriptscriptstyle (1+2r_j)[{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{^2}{Q_j^{}K_j}}+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{^2}{Q_jK_j^{}}}]}}\times `$
$`sin\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}[{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{Q_j^{}K_j}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{Q_jK_j^{}}}]\}H_w(𝐐^{},𝐊^{})\rho _w(t,𝐐,𝐊)`$ (35)
Performing integration and replacing parameter $`𝐫`$ by the following

$$r_j=\frac{(1+s_j)}{2},j=1,2,\mathrm{},N$$

we obtain the generalization of the Moyal bracket :

$$\frac{\rho (𝐫,𝐐,𝐏)}{t}=[H,\rho ]_M^s$$
(36)
where ( after returning to the variables $`P_j=2\pi \mathrm{}K_j`$) the generalized (or $`s`$-parameterized) Moyal bracket is

$$[H,\rho ]_M^s=e^{\frac{i\mathrm{}}{\mathit{2}}{\scriptscriptstyle s_j({\scriptscriptstyle \frac{^\mathit{2}}{Q_j^{}P_j}}+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{^\mathit{2}}{Q_jP_j^{}}})}}\times $$

$$\frac{2}{\mathrm{}}sin\{\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}[\frac{^2}{Q_j^{}P_j}\frac{^2}{Q_jP_j^{}}]\}H_w(𝐐^{},𝐏^{})\rho _w(t,𝐐,𝐏)$$

The same result was presented in . However there the authors introduced parameter $`s`$ by hand, without relating it to any transformation of the quantum states and simply treating it as a means to achieve a unified approach to different quantization rules. On the other hand, our approach ( based on ) explicitly shows that such a parameter is a result of a linear transformation from one quantum state to another. Since the pure states are represented by rays, it is very natural to expect that the above transformation would result in the appearance of the phase, which is clearly seen in the exponential operator.

## 3 On a Physical Meaning
of the s-Parameter

It is therefore interesting to investigate what role is played by this parameter in a transition to a classical case. To this end we restrict our attention to a $`1D`$ case and consider (following Moyal) space-conditional moments $`<p^n>_w`$ ( the Wigner averages of the powers of $`p^n`$ of the momentum):

$$
_w=\frac{A_w(p,q,s)p^n𝑑p}{A_w(p,q,s)𝑑p}$$
(37)
For the subsequent calculations we have to transform $`A_w`$ (the phase-space distribution function given by Eq.28) into an integral form. For the convenience sake, we replace parameter $`s`$ by $`\sigma `$ and choose the units with $`\mathrm{}=1`$. As a next step, we find Fourier-transform of $`A_w(p,q,\sigma )`$, Eq.(28). We denote this transform by $`M(\tau ,\theta ,\sigma )`$ :

$$M(\tau ,\theta ,\sigma )=e^{(\tau p+\theta q)}e^{\frac{1\sigma }{2}\frac{^2}{pq}}[\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(q)\mathrm{\Psi }(p)e^{ipq}]𝑑p𝑑q$$
(38)
Integration of (38) by parts yields:

$$M(\tau ,\theta ,\sigma )=\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(q)e^{i\theta [q+\frac{\tau (1\sigma )}{2}]}\mathrm{\Psi }(p)e^{ip(q+\tau )}𝑑p𝑑q$$
(39)
We introduce a new variable $`q_1`$:

$$q=q_1\frac{\tau }{2}(1\sigma )$$

Using $`q_1`$ in (39) we obtain:

$$M(\tau ,\theta ,\sigma )=\{e^{i\theta q_1}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}[q_1\frac{\tau }{2}(1\sigma )]e^{ip[q_1+\frac{\tau }{2}(1+\sigma )]}\mathrm{\Psi }(p)𝑑p\}𝑑q_1$$
(40)
Since

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{}}}e^{ip[q_1+\frac{\tau }{2}(1+\sigma )]}\mathrm{\Psi }(p)𝑑p=\mathrm{\Psi }[q_1+\frac{\tau }{2}(1+\sigma )]$$

relation (40) takes the following form:

$$M(\tau ,\theta ,\sigma )=\mathrm{\Psi }^{}[q_1\frac{\tau }{2}(1\sigma )]e^{i\theta q_1}\mathrm{\Psi }[q_1+\frac{\tau }{2}(1+\sigma )]𝑑q_1$$
(41)
Inverse Fourier-transform of $`M(\tau ,\theta ,\sigma )`$ gives us the desired integral form of the phase-space distribution (a $`s`$-parameterized Wigner function) $`A_w(p,q,\sigma )`$111 a simplified derivation of $`A_w(p,q,\sigma `$ is given in the Appendix:

$$A_w(p,q,\sigma )=\frac{1}{2\pi }\mathrm{\Psi }^{}[q_1\frac{\tau }{2}(1\sigma )]e^{i\tau p}\mathrm{\Psi }[q_1+\frac{\tau }{2}(1+\sigma )]𝑑\tau $$
(42)
If parameter $`\sigma =0`$ then , as expected, Eq.(42) is reduced to an expression first given by Wigner . Using Eq. (42) we find the probability density

$$A_w(p,q,\sigma )𝑑p=\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(q)\mathrm{\Psi }(q)=|\mathrm{\Psi }(q)|^2\rho $$
(43)
In general, since the parameter $`\sigma `$ (or $`s`$) is complex-valued, the $`\sigma `$-parameterized Wigner function $`A_w(p,q,\sigma )`$ is also $`complexvalued`$, in contradistinction to its conventional counterpart ( with $`\sigma =0`$). However for the purely imaginary values of the parameter $`\sigma `$, the $`\sigma `$-parameterized Wigner function becomes real-valued again:

$$i)A_w^{}(p,q,\sigma )=A_w(q,p,\sigma )$$

$$ii)A_w^{}(p,q,\sigma )=A_w(q,p,\sigma ),Re(\sigma )=0$$

For the following we rewrite $`A_w(p,q,\sigma )`$ in terms of the momentum wave function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(p)`$. After some algebra we obtain

$$A_w(p,q,\sigma )=𝑑p^{}𝑑p^{\prime \prime }e^{iq(p^{\prime \prime }p^{})}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(p^{\prime \prime })\mathrm{\Phi }(p^{})\delta [p\frac{p^{\prime \prime }(1+\sigma )+p^{}(1\sigma )}{2}]$$
(44)
Upon substitution of (43), (44) into (37) we get

$`\rho <p^n>_w={\displaystyle A_w(p,q,\sigma )p^n𝑑p}=`$
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑p𝑑p^{}𝑑p^{\prime \prime }p^ne^{iq(p^{\prime \prime }p^{})}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(p^{\prime \prime })\mathrm{\Phi }(p^{})\delta [p\frac{p^{\prime \prime }(1+\sigma )+p^{}(1\sigma )}{2}]}=`$
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑p^{}𝑑p^{\prime \prime }e^{iq(p^{\prime \prime }p^{})}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(p^{\prime \prime })\mathrm{\Phi }(p^{})[\frac{p^{\prime \prime }(1+\sigma )+p^{}(1\sigma )}{2}]^n}`$ (45)
By observing that

$$\frac{1\sigma }{i}\frac{}{q_2}e^{i(q_1p^{\prime \prime }q_2p^{})}=(1\sigma )p^{}e^{i(q_1p^{\prime \prime }q_2p^{})}|_{q_1q_2}=(1\sigma )e^{iq(p^{}p^{\prime \prime })}$$

$$\frac{1+\sigma }{i}\frac{}{q_1}e^{i(q_1p^{\prime \prime }q_2p^{})}=(1\sigma )p^{\prime \prime }e^{i(q_1p^{\prime \prime }q_2p^{})}|_{q_1q_2}=(1+\sigma )e^{iq(p^{}p^{\prime \prime })}$$

we rewrite (3)

$`\rho
_w=\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2i}}[(1\sigma ){\displaystyle \frac{}{q_2}}(1+\sigma ){\displaystyle \frac{}{q_1}}]^n{\displaystyle e^{iq_1p^{}}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(p^{\prime \prime })𝑑p^{\prime \prime }e^{iq_2p^{}}}\}|_{q_2q_1}=`$
$`\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2i}}[(1\sigma ){\displaystyle \frac{}{q_2}}(1+\sigma ){\displaystyle \frac{}{q_1}}]^n\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(q_1)\mathrm{\Psi }(q)\}|_{q_2q_1}`$ (46)
Returning to the units with $`\mathrm{}`$ and using (43), we calculate two first momenta $`<p>_w`$ and $`<p^2>_w`$:

$`
_w={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(q)\mathrm{\Psi }(q)}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2i}}[(1\sigma ){\displaystyle \frac{}{q_2}}(1+\sigma ){\displaystyle \frac{}{q_1}}]\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(q_1)\mathrm{\Psi }(q)\}|_{q_2q_1}=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2i}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{q}}\{Ln({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }}{\mathrm{\Psi }^{}}})\sigma Ln(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi })\}`$ (47)
and

$$
_w=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{4}[(1\sigma )^2\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }^{\prime \prime }}{\mathrm{\Psi }}2(1\sigma ^2)\frac{Ln\mathrm{\Psi }}{q}\frac{Ln\mathrm{\Psi }^{}}{q}+(1+\sigma )^2\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }^{^{\prime \prime }}}{\mathrm{\Psi }^{}}]$$
(48)
Let us consider a semi-classical limit

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(q,t)=\sqrt{\rho }e^{iS/\mathrm{}}$$
(49)
where $`S`$ is the classical action. Inserting (49) into (3) we obtain:

$$\underset{\mathrm{}0}{lim}
_w=\underset{\mathrm{}0}{lim}\{Si\frac{\mathrm{}S}{2}(Ln\rho )\}=S=p_{classical}$$
(50)
If we use the Schroedinger equation:

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{Ln(\mathrm{\Psi })}{t}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\frac{^2\mathrm{\Psi }}{\mathrm{\Psi }}+V$$

then employing (49) in (48)we get the following:

$`\underset{\mathrm{}0}{lim}<p^2>_w=m\underset{\mathrm{}0}{lim}\{{\displaystyle \frac{S}{t}}V+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}(S)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{8m}}(Ln\rho )^2+`$
$`+\sigma ^2[{\displaystyle \frac{S}{t}}V{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}(S)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{8m}}(Ln\rho )^2]+{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}Ln({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }}{\mathrm{\Psi }^{}}})\}=`$
$`m\{{\displaystyle \frac{S}{t}}V+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}(S)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{8m}}(Ln\rho )^2]+`$
$`\sigma ^2[{\displaystyle \frac{S}{t}}V{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}(S)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{8m}}(Ln\rho )^2\}`$ (51)
This limit must yield the classical value of the square of the classical momentum

$$\underset{\mathrm{}0}{lim}
_w=p_{classical}^2=(S)^2$$

which is independent of the parameter $`\sigma .`$ This is possible if the factor at $`\sigma `$ in (3) becomes $`0`$, that is

$$\frac{S}{t}=\frac{1}{2m}(S)^2+V$$

But amazingly enough this condition is nothing more than the classical Hamilton-Jacobi equation. Thus emergence of the parameter $`\sigma `$ in Wigner function is tied to an emergence of the classical Hamilton-Jacobi equation in transition to a classical regime.

## 4 Conclusion

We have demonstrated that $`s`$-parameterized Wigner function emerges as a result of a linear transformation from one quantum state to another. The respective change of the phase space coordinates accompanying such a transform must be necessarily canonical. This allows one to arrive in a natural way, without introducing ”by hand” the $`s`$-parameter into the transformation either by suitably chosen displacement operator or by using it as a ”missing link” between normal and anti-normal ordering operators.

A transition to a classical regime demonstrates that parameter $`s`$ plays an important role, ensuring the emergence of the classical Hamilton-Jacobi equation as a condition for the disappearance of this parameter in classical mechanics.

## 5 Appendix

Since the momentum representation $`\mathrm{\Phi }(p)`$ and the coordinate representation $`\mathrm{\Psi }(q)`$ of the wave function ( for simplicity sake we consider a 1-D case) are related as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(p)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi \mathrm{}}}e^{ipq^{}/\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Psi }(q^{})𝑑q^{}$$
(52)
the momentum probability density is

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(p)|^2=\frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{}}𝑑q^{}𝑑q^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Psi }(q^{})\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(q^{\prime \prime })e^{ip(q^{\prime \prime }q^{})/\mathrm{}}$$
(53)
We introduce new variables $`q`$ and $`\tau `$

$$q^{}=q+\alpha \tau ;q^{\prime \prime }=q+\beta \tau $$

where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are constants such that the Jacobian of transformation from $`q^{\prime \prime },q^{}`$ to $`q,\tau `$ is $`\mathrm{}`$ which means

$$\alpha \beta =\mathrm{}$$

As a result, Eq.(53) yields

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }(p)|^2=\frac{1}{2\pi }𝑑q𝑑\tau \mathrm{\Psi }(q+\alpha \tau )\mathrm{\Psi }^{}[q+(\alpha \mathrm{})\tau ]e^{ip\tau }$$
(54)
Now we represent the arbitrary parameter $`\alpha `$ as

$$\alpha =\frac{\mathrm{}(1+s)}{2}$$

Upon substitution of this expression into (54) we obtain

$`|\mathrm{\Phi }(p)|^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑q𝑑\tau e^{ip\tau }\mathrm{\Psi }[q+\frac{\mathrm{}(1+s)}{2}]\mathrm{\Psi }^{}[q\frac{\mathrm{}(1s)}{2}]}=`$
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑qA_w(p,q,s)}`$ (55)
where

$$A_w(p,q,s)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\mathrm{\Psi }[q+\frac{\mathrm{}(1+s)}{2}]e^{ip\tau }\mathrm{\Psi }^{}[q\frac{\mathrm{}(1s)}{2}]𝑑\tau $$
(56)
is the $`s`$-parameterized Wigner function found earlier, Eq.(42)

## 6 Acknowledgement

The author expresses his gratitude to C.McCallum for his help in preparation of this paper.