text:
# The Casimir Effect on the Light-Cone

## I Introduction

In the Casimir effect casimir , the change in the quantum fluctuations of a field due to its interaction with a medium incorporated into boundary conditions is measured. The observable is the pressure exerted by the quantum fluctuations on walls which limit the system in one spatial direction. The Casimir effect is accessible to experiments only if the corresponding quantum field possesses massless excitations. Measurements sparnaay ; roy ; ono  of the change in the ground state energy of the electromagnetic field in the presence of metallic boundaries have confirmed Casimir’s original prediction. In the standard treatment of the Casimir effect the appropriate standing wave conditions of electromagnetism are used. In relativistically covariant theories, the Casimir effect with periodic boundary conditions imposed and black-body radiation are related to each other. More precisely, covariance connects the energy-momentum tensor for a system at finite spatial extension with the energy-momentum tensor of the same system at finite temperature lt98 ; toms .
This investigation of the Casimir effect is intended to clarify the description of the vacuum in light-cone quantization. Unlike other vacuum properties like condensates which have to appear for consistency of the underlying theory but cannot be measured directly, quantities related to the Casimir effect are experimental observables and therefore have to be correctly described within any formalism. As in other instances, one might expect that the infinite momentum frame interpretation of light-cone results applies. In this case the light-cone formulation of the Casimir effect should correspond to the observation of the Casimir effect by an observer moving with respect to the “walls” of the system and approaching the speed of light. Of particular interest thereby is the situation in which the observer’s velocity is perpendicular to the “walls”. With this study of the light-cone vacuum properties we will also address the issue of developing a viable approach to finite temperature field theory in light-cone quantization.
Our investigation will start within the canonical formalism. In this standard framework for the discussion of the Casimir effect itzykson  energy density and related observables are obtained by the (suitably regularized) sum over the zero-point energies of the normal modes of a massless non-interacting quantum field. As one of the central issues in our study we will establish the relation between the Casimir energy in ordinary coordinates and on the light-cone within a covariant formalism and prepare in this way the ground for the discussion of the relation to finite temperature field theory on the light-cone.

## II Casimir Effect in the Canonical Formalism

The forces acting on the boundaries of an (partially) enclosed system are determined by the size dependence of the energy density. In this section we shall calculate this energy density for periodic boundary conditions. Although not directly relevant for the observation of the Casimir effect in electrodynamics, where standing wave boundary conditions describe appropriately the interaction of electromagnetic waves with metallic boundaries, from the theoretical point of view, periodic or antiperiodic boundary conditions are preferable. Momentum conservation is preserved with this choice and for relativistically covariant theories, the results can be connected to the corresponding thermodynamic quantities at finite temperature. Here we discuss the Casimir effect for a non-interacting, massless scalar field. In this section, heat-kernel regularization is used for dealing with the infinities in the sum over the zero-point energies. For comparison we first give the result for the energy density using standard coordinates. Enclosing the system between walls at a distance $`L`$ and imposing periodic boundary conditions the eigenenergies of the one particle states are

$$\omega (𝐤_{},n)=\sqrt{𝐤_{}^2+\left(\frac{2\pi n}{L}\right)^2}$$

with $`𝐤_{}`$ denoting the continuous momentum components orthogonal to the compact direction. As is well known, the regularized sum over the zero-point energies

$`_{\lambda ^0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2L}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐤_{}}{(2\pi )^2}\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\omega e^{\lambda ^0\omega }}`$ (1)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2\pi ^2\lambda ^{\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}4}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{90L^4}}`$
contains a singular, size independent contribution and a finite, size dependent term. The observable pressure exerted on the walls

$$P=\frac{L_{\lambda ^0}}{L}=\frac{\pi ^2}{30L^4}$$

is therefore finite and its $`L`$-dependence follows from dimensional arguments.
We now calculate the energy density in light-cone quantization. We use the following notation for coordinates and momenta

$$x^\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(x^0\pm x^3),k_\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(k_0\pm k_3)$$

and refer to $`x^+,k_+`$ as light-cone time and light-cone energy respectively. The light-cone energies of the one particle states are given by

$$k_+=\frac{k_1^2+k_2^2}{2k_{}},\text{with the constraint}k_{}>0.$$

In light-cone quantization the system may be chosen to be compact and periodic in a transverse direction (orthogonal to the 3 direction) or in the light-cone space $`x^{}`$ direction. With the transverse boundary condition

$$\phi (x^+,x^{},x^1+L,x^2)=\phi (x^+,x^{},x^1,x^2),$$

the energies of the one particle states are

$$\omega _t(k_{},k,n)=\frac{1}{2k_{}}\left(k^2+\left(\frac{2\pi n}{L}\right)^2\right).$$

To regularize the infinities the suppression of the contribution from both large light-cone energies and large light-cone momenta requires two regulators. The resulting light-cone energy density

$`_\text{t}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2L}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk_{}}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\omega _te^{\lambda ^{}k_{}\lambda ^+\omega _t}`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2(\lambda ^+\lambda ^{})^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{90L^4}}`$
coincides in the relevant, finite and size dependent term and differs in the singular but size independent contribution. Later we will make explicit the relation between the results.
With longitudinal boundary conditions

$$\phi (x^+,x^{}+L,x^1,x^2)=\phi (x^+,x^{},x^1,x^2)$$

the energies of the one particle states are

$$\omega _l(𝐤_{},n)=\frac{𝐤_{}^2}{4\pi n/L},$$

and the following result for the energy density

$`_\text{l}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2L}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐤_{}}{(2\pi )^2}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\omega _le^{\lambda ^{}2\pi n/L\lambda ^+\omega _l}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2(\lambda ^+\lambda ^{})^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24\lambda ^{+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}L^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{120L^4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^{}}{\lambda ^+}}\right)^2`$
is obtained. No separation of regulator ($`\lambda ^\pm `$) and size ($`L`$) dependence occurs. It is difficult to assess the physical relevance of this result within the canonical formalism. In the following sections we will recalculate the Casimir energy density in a formalism in which the (residual) covariance is explicit.

## III Energy Momentum Tensor in a Periodic Vacuum

To make explicit the covariance in the calculation of the Casimir energy we impose the boundary condition

$$\text{bc}:\phi (x+\mathrm{})=\phi (x).$$
(4)
The 4-vector $`\mathrm{}`$ specifies orientation and distance of the ”walls” enclosing the system. Imposing this boundary condition singles out a Lorentz-frame which we will refer to as the rest-system. The generating functional in a frame connected with the rest-system by an element $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of the (proper) Lorentz-group is given by

$$Z_\mathrm{\Lambda }[J]=_{\text{bc}_\mathrm{\Lambda }}d[\stackrel{~}{\phi }]e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle d^4x(\stackrel{~}{\phi }(x))}+i{\scriptscriptstyle d^4xJ\stackrel{~}{\phi }}}$$

with the Lorentz-transformed boundary conditions bcΛ

$$\text{bc}_\mathrm{\Lambda }:\stackrel{~}{\phi }(\mathrm{\Lambda }^1(x+\mathrm{}))=\stackrel{~}{\phi }(\mathrm{\Lambda }^1(x)).$$
(5)
We perform a variable substitution corresponding to a Lorentz-transformation back to the rest-system

$$\phi (x)=\stackrel{~}{\phi }(\mathrm{\Lambda }^1x)$$

The Lagrangian $``$ is invariant, the Jacobian of this variable substitution is $`1`$ and the fields $`\phi `$ satisfy the boundary conditions (4). The generating functional for a moving observer can therefore be written as

$$Z_\mathrm{\Lambda }[J]=_{\text{bc}}d[\phi ]e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle d^4x(\phi (x))}+i{\scriptscriptstyle d^4xJ(\mathrm{\Lambda }^1x)\phi (x)}}.$$

With the Lagrangian of a massless non-interacting scalar field

$$[\phi ]=\frac{1}{2}_\mu \phi ^\mu \phi ,$$

the generating functional becomes

$$Z_\mathrm{\Lambda }[J]=e^{\frac{i}{2}{\scriptscriptstyle d^4xd^4yJ(x)D(\mathrm{\Lambda }(xy))J(y)}}$$

with the scalar two-point function periodic in the direction of $`\mathrm{}`$

$$D(z)=\underset{n}{}\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^3}e^{ikz}\frac{1}{k^2+iϵ}\delta \left(k\mathrm{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi n\right).$$
(6)
For evaluation of the Casimir effect as seen from a moving observer we compute the energy-momentum tensor with the help of the generating functional

$`J_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`(_\mu ^x_\nu ^y{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\mu \nu }_\rho ^x^{y\rho }){\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2Z_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\delta J(x)\delta J(y)}}|_{J=0,xy}`$
$`=`$ $`i(_\mu _\nu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{})D(\mathrm{\Lambda }z)|_{z0}.`$
We note that in this framework the ultraviolet divergencies appearing in the Casimir energy are regularized by point splitting. The covariance of this regularization will turn out to be crucial for the following studies.

In the evaluation of $`D(z)`$ we have to distinguish the cases of space- and lightlike 4-vectors $`\mathrm{}`$. We first consider spacelike separations of the walls

$$0<\mathrm{}^2=L^2,$$
(8)
and define correspondingly the components of the 4-vector $`z`$ which serves as regulator

$$z^{}=\frac{z\mathrm{}}{L}z^{}=\sqrt{z^2+z^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}iϵ}.$$
(9)
Integration over the momenta and summing the resulting geometrical series yields the final expression for the two-point function

$`D(z)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi Lz^{}}}[1`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{2i\pi /L(z^{}+z^{})}1}}`$ (10)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{2i\pi /L(z^{}z^{})}1}}].`$
The above expression displays the covariance of this approach. In general, the scalar two-point function is a function of the scalars formed from the two 4-vectors $`z`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ characterizing the system

$$D(z)=D(z^2,\mathrm{}^2,z\mathrm{}).$$
(11)
## IV Casimir Effect in a Moving Frame

In this section we compute the components of the energy-momentum tensor in various systems. We expand the above expression for $`D(z)`$ (Eq.(10)) around $`z=0`$

$`D(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi Lz^{}}}\{1+{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{B_n}{n!}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2i\pi }{L}}\right)^{n1}`$ (12)
$``$ $`[(z^{}+z^{})^{n1}+(z^{}z^{})^{n1}]\}`$
with the Bernoulli-numbers $`B_n`$. The leading terms in the $`z0`$ limit are

$$D(z)\frac{i}{4\pi }\left[\frac{1}{\pi z^2}\frac{\pi }{3L^2}\frac{\pi ^3}{45L^4}\left(z^2+4z^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\right)\right].$$

The singular term in this expansion is invariant under Lorentz-transformations ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) and independent of the periodic structure of the vacuum ($`L`$). At the smallest scale, the vacuum is identical for all observers and not affected by periodicity on large scales. The singular contributions to the energy-momentum tensor is given by

$`J_{\mu \nu }^{sing}`$ $`=`$ $`(_\mu _\nu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\mu \nu }_\rho ^\rho ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2z^2}}`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi ^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4z_\mu z_\nu }{z^6}}g_{\mu \nu }({\displaystyle \frac{1}{z^4}}+i\pi ^2\delta (z))\right].`$
By choosing the elements of the energy-momentum tensor to vanish in a certain frame and for a certain size, e.g. the rest-system and $`L=\mathrm{}`$ , the singular pieces will be absent in any other frame and for any other $`L`$. It does not affect any observable. For the regular, size and frame dependent part of the energy-momentum tensor we obtain

$$J_{\mu \nu }=\frac{\pi ^2}{90L^4}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^\rho \mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^\sigma \left[g_{\rho \sigma }4\frac{\mathrm{}_\rho \mathrm{}_\sigma }{\mathrm{}^2}\right].$$
(14)
The energy density in the rest-system coincides, after the identification $`z_\mu =i\lambda _0\delta _{0\mu }`$, with the result of the canonical calculation (Eq.(1)) up to the $`\delta (z)`$ term which disappears in the rotation to the Euclidean space.

The light-cone energy density in the transverse Casimir effect ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1,ł^\mu =\delta _{\mu ,1}`$) is given by

$$J_+=\frac{1}{2}J^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}00}}J^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}33}}=\frac{\pi ^2}{90L^4}.$$
(15)
With the identification $`z^\pm =i\lambda ^\pm ,z^1=z^2=0`$ it agrees up to the $`\delta `$-function with the canonical result (Eq.(2)). In this covariant formulation, the evaluation of $`D(z)`$ is trivially identical for light-cone and ordinary coordinates. The difference in the singular piece arises from the differences in the definition of $`J_+`$ and $`J_{00}`$.
In the longitudinal Casimir effect the choice of light-cone coordinates is much more severe. Here, the 4-vector $`\mathrm{}`$ is light-like. A simple relation between the two-point functions for spacelike and lightlike separations of the compact direction does not exist. One however might expect the light-cone energy density in the longitudinal Casimir effect to be related with the energy density as seen from an observer in the infinite momentum frame. We will investigate this possibility and assume in the following discussion the 3-direction to be compact

$$\mathrm{}^\mu =L\delta _{\mu 3}$$

and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to describe a boost in the 3-direction

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^3=\gamma (\delta _{\mu 3}\beta \delta _{\mu 0}).$$
(16)
The order in which the infinite momentum frame limit $`\beta ^21`$ and the limit of vanishing regulator $`z`$ are performed has to be specified. If we first perform for given $`\beta ^2<1`$ the $`z0`$ limit $`|(\mathrm{\Lambda }z)^\mu |0`$ we can expand as above the exponentials in Eq.(10) and the result (cf. Eq.(14)) is given by

$$=\frac{\pi ^2}{90L^4}\left[1+4\beta ^2\gamma ^2\right],J_{33}=\frac{\pi ^2}{90L^4}\gamma ^2(3+\beta ^2).$$
(17)
In the subsequent $`\beta ^21`$ limit, the elements of the energy-momentum tensor become infinite, the light cone energy density however

$$J_+=\frac{1}{2}\left(J^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}00}}J^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}33}}\right)=\frac{\pi ^2}{90L^4},$$
(18)
by covariance, is independent of $`\beta `$ and thus is not affected by the approach to the infinite momentum frame. This result does not agree with the canonical result (Eq.(II)). It differs in sign from the light-cone energy density in the transverse Casimir effect due to the extra momentum flux (pressure) along the compact direction induced by the walls contributing here but not in (15).
In the reversed order, first the approach to the light-cone is performed (for fixed regulator $`z`$) and only then the $`z0`$ limit is carried out. The transformed arguments (cf. Eqs.(9), (16)) appearing in the expression (10) for the two-point function are to leading order in the $`\beta 1`$ limit given by

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }(z^{}+z^3)`$ $``$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{1+\beta }}}z^+{\displaystyle \frac{z_{}^2\sqrt{1+\beta }}{2z^+}}\right]`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }(z^{}z^3)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1+\beta }z^2}{2z^+}}.`$
Keeping

$$|z^2|L^2,z^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}L^2$$
(19)
fixed and approaching the light-cone ($`\beta 1`$), the quantity

$$\stackrel{~}{L}^2=\frac{z^+L}{\sqrt{1+\beta }}$$
(20)
increases beyond any bound and becomes the largest characteristic length of the system

$$|z^2|L^2\stackrel{~}{L}^2.$$
(21)
In this limit the following expression for the 2-point function

$$D(\mathrm{\Lambda }z)=\frac{1}{4\pi \stackrel{~}{L}^2}+D_+(\mathrm{\Lambda }z)+D_{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }z)$$
(22)
is obtained, with

$$D_+(\mathrm{\Lambda }z)\frac{1}{4\pi \stackrel{~}{L}^2}\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}\{i\pi \frac{4\stackrel{~}{L}^2}{L^2}\}1},$$
(23)
$`D_{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi \stackrel{~}{L}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}\{i\pi \frac{z^2}{\stackrel{~}{L}^2}\}1}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4\pi ^2z^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi \stackrel{~}{L}^2}}i{\displaystyle \frac{z^2}{48\stackrel{~}{L}^4}}i{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2z^6}{2880\stackrel{~}{L}^8}}.`$ (24)
Note that the argument of the exponential in $`D_+`$ becomes infinite in the approach to the light-cone. After a rotation to complex $`z`$ the contribution of $`D_+`$ to the energy-momentum tensor becomes negligible. The argument of the exponential in $`D_{}`$ remains small and the result for the energy density in the infinite momentum frame follows

$`_{lc}=J_+={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\mathbf{}_{}^2D(\mathrm{\Lambda }z)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi ^2z^4}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{4z^+z^{}}{z^2}})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24\stackrel{~}{L}^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2z^2}{480\stackrel{~}{L}^8}}(3z^24z^+z^{}).`$
In the infinite momentum frame limit specified by Eqs. (19), (21), the $`\stackrel{~}{L}^8`$ and the higher order contributions in the above formulae can be neglected. Identifying the regulators in the canonical with those of the infinite momentum frame calculation

$$z^+=i\lambda ^+(1+\beta )^{\frac{1}{2}}z^{}=i\lambda ^{}(1+\beta )^{\frac{1}{2}},𝐳_{}=0$$

makes the expressions in Eqs.(II) and (IV) for the longitudinal Casimir energy density coincide.
In performing first the limit $`\beta ^21`$ necessarily the regime specified by Eq.((21)) is reached in which the Lorentz-contracted length becomes much smaller than the regulator

$$\gamma ^1L|z^+|.$$

A regulator independent result for the physical observables cannot be expected in such a situation.

## V Lightlike and Spacelike Compactifications

For lightlike orientation of the compact direction,

$$\mathrm{}=\frac{L}{\sqrt{2}}(1,0,0,1)$$

the two point function (6) can be evaluated with the result

$`D_{lc}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi z^+L}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{i\pi \frac{z^2}{z^+L}}1}}`$ (26)
$``$ $`\delta (z^+){\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^2L}}{\displaystyle d^2k_{}\frac{e^{ik_{}z^{}}}{k_{}^2iϵ}}.`$
$`D_{lc}`$ contains a singular contribution arising from the zero-mode (n=0 in Eq.(6)). Up to this zero-mode contribution the light-cone two-point function agrees with the infinite momentum frame limit of the two-point function $`D_{}`$ (Eq.(IV)) provided the light-cone extension $`L`$ is identified with the Lorentz-contracted extension $`\sqrt{1+\beta }L`$ in the infinite momentum frame which becomes small on the scale of the regulator. In the longitudinal Casimir effect, the compact direction is specified by the lightlike vector given in light-cone coordinates by

$$\mathrm{}=(0,L,0,0),\mathrm{}^2=0.$$

Therefore the two-point function

$$D_{lc}=D_{lc}(z^2,z\mathrm{}),$$

cannot contain a finite and regulator independent term. A meaningful definition of the energy density for the compact direction coinciding with the $`x^{}`$ direction is not possible. However the compact direction can be arbitrary close to the $`x^{}`$ direction. This is easily seen when imposing boundary conditions

$$\phi (x^+,x^{}+L,x^1+sL,x^2)=\phi (x^+,x^{},x^1,x^2),$$
(27)
by which the $`x^{}`$ direction can be approached ($`s0`$) from orientations characterized by spacelike vectors

$$\mathrm{}=(0,L,sL,0),\mathrm{}^2=s^2L^2.$$

By a Lorentz-transformation consisting of a rotation around the $`x^2`$ \- axis by an angle $`\alpha =\mathrm{arcsin}(1+2s^2)^{1/2}`$ followed by a boost along the $`x^1`$ direction with velocity $`\beta =\mathrm{sin}\alpha `$ transforms this boundary condition into a transverse boundary condition

$$\phi (x^+,x^{},x^1+sL,x^2)=\phi (x^+,x^{},x^1,x^2).$$
(28)
The expansion of $`D(z)`$ in Eq.(12) is controlled by $`z/(sL)`$ which for given s can be made arbitrarily small in the $`z0`$ limit. In this limit, the light-cone energy density is obtained from Eq.(14)

$$J_+=\frac{\pi ^2}{90(sL)^4}.$$

Thus a physically meaningful Casimir energy emerges for arbitrary choices of the compact spacelike direction excluding a region around the $`x^{}`$ direction with opening angle determined by the ratio of the components of the regulator $`z`$ over the proper length $`sL`$. The failure of the regularization to produce sensible results for a compact $`x^{}`$ direction is due to the peculiar infrared properties of the spectrum in light-cone quantization. It is the divergence of the one particle energies at small light-cone momenta which is regularized by $`z^+`$ and which makes the final result dependent on this regulator. On the other hand, after subtraction of the ultraviolet contribution, the Casimir effect is a long wavelength phenomenon as the difference between the characteristic $`L^4`$ dependence for massless and the exponential suppression $`\mathrm{exp}(mL)`$ for massive particles demonstrates. Furthermore the attraction, i.e. the decrease in the energy density with the decrease in the separation of the walls is a result of a delicate interplay between the repulsion due to the increased zero-point energies for $`n0`$ and the increase in the relative weight of the states with small or vanishing $`n`$. As a consequence of these competing effects a change from attraction to repulsion occurs when changing continously from periodic to antiperiodic boundary conditions. The lightlike nature of the compact direction in combination with this sensitivity of the observables to the infinite and long wavelength properties makes the energy-momentum tensor in the longitudinal Casimir effect ill-defined. Similar difficulties are most likely to be encountered in the attempt to calculate other vacuum properties such as condensates which also are dominated by long wavelength properties. Like in the Casimir effect these problems can be avoided provided compact directions, if at all present, are chosen to be spacelike. The choice of spacelike compact directions raises however new technical issues. Compactification of the $`x^{}`$ direction is often the basis for significant simplifications in the actual calculations. In gauge theories, for instance, the choice of light-cone gauge $`A_{}`$ seems to be a prerequisite for making use of the simplifications offered by light-cone quantization. On the other hand, implementation of axial gauges is free of infrared problems only if the associated direction - here the $`x^{}`$ direction - is compactified. One therefore again may have to resort to approach the lightlike from spacelike compact directions which in turn would require an accompanying change in gauge. These problems have to be investigated if vacuum properties are to be determined within approaches to light-cone quantizations which make use of a compact $`x^{}`$ direction such as DLCQ pauli1 ; pauli2 ; pauli3 ; pauli4  or the transverse lattice approach bardeen ; burkardt ; dalley ; sande .

Extensions to other forms of boundary conditions are possible. Quasi-periodic boundary conditions are important because of their application to finite temperature field theory. If one requires

$$\phi (x+\mathrm{})=e^{i\chi }\phi (x),0\chi <2\pi ,$$
(29)
the analysis can be carried through as before. The expression (14) for the $`L`$-dependent part of the energy momentum tensor gets modified by

$`J_{\mu \nu }J_{\mu \nu }\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{15\chi ^2}{2\pi ^2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{2\pi }}\right)^2\right).`$ (30)
In the light-cone result (IV) for the longitudinal Casimir effect, the relevant term in $`_{lc}`$ becomes

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24\stackrel{~}{L}^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24\stackrel{~}{L}^4}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{3\chi }{\pi }}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{2\pi }}\right)\right).`$ (31)
Therefore the difference between our results for periodic and quasi-periodic boundary conditions consists only of some $`\chi `$-dependent factors which do not influence our conclusions with respect to light-cone physics. Extension to standing wave boundary conditions like

$`\phi (𝒙_{},x^3=0)=0,\phi (𝒙_{},x^3=L)=0,`$ (32)
introduce new elements in our discussion. First we remark that with the violation of translational invariance by the Dirichlet boundary conditions, the energy momentum tensor becomes $`x^3`$-dependent. Following the same procedure as above we find e.g. for the energy density as seen from a moving observer

$``$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{90(2L)^4}}[1+4\beta ^2\gamma ^2]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{24L^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{2+\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{2\pi }{L}\stackrel{~}{x}^3\right)}{\left(1\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{2\pi }{L}\stackrel{~}{x}^3\right)\right)^2}}`$
$`[2+3\beta ^2\gamma ^2]\mathrm{\Theta }(\stackrel{~}{x}^3)\mathrm{\Theta }\left(L\stackrel{~}{x}^3\right)`$ (33)
with $`\stackrel{~}{x}^3=\gamma (x^3\beta x^0)`$. After integration over $`x^3`$, the second term in (V) becomes $`L`$-independent and therefore does not contribute to the force between the walls. In comparison with periodic boundary conditions the well-known $`2^4`$ suppression of the force generated by standing waves is obtained. Once more the transverse Casimir effect on the light-cone yields the same result. Although the Casimir effect is well defined in the infinite momentum frame limit ($`\beta ^21`$ in(V)), no physically meaningful description for the longitudinal Casimir effect in light-cone quantization exists. Equal light-cone time standing wave conditions are not compatible with the light-cone equations of motion which are first order in $`x^{}`$.

## VI Thermodynamical Observables in Light-Cone Quantization

The correct description of the Casimir effect for spacelike compact directions offers the possibility to calculate thermodynamic quantities in light-cone quantization. The straightforward generalization of the standard procedure to define a partition function in light-cone quantization by compactifying the light-cone time is faced with the difficulties encountered in the definition of the longitudinal Casimir effect. The light-cone time direction is lightlike and not as in ordinary coordinates timelike. Compactification along the $`x^+`$ direction at inverse temperature $`\beta `$ defines the 4-vector with light-cone coordinates

$$\mathrm{}=(\beta ,0,0,0),\mathrm{}^2=0$$

implying

$$D(z)=D(z^2,z^{}\beta ).$$

A finite regulator independent thermodynamic quantity cannot be extracted from $`D(z)`$. We however may use the general equivalence between relativistic field theories at finite temperature and finite extension lt98 ; toms . By rotational invariance in the Euclidean, the value of the partition function of a system with finite extension $`L`$ in 1 direction and $`\beta `$ in 0 direction is invariant under the exchange of these two extensions,

$$Z(\beta ,L)=Z(L,\beta ),$$
(34)
provided bosonic (fermionic) fields satisfy periodic (antiperiodic) boundary conditions in both time and 3 coordinate. Thus relativistic covariance connects the thermodynamic properties of a canonical ensemble with vacuum properties of the same physical system but at finite extension. As a consequence energy density and pressure are related by

$$ϵ(\beta ,L)=p(L,\beta ).$$
(35)
Thus the energy-momentum tensor at finite temperature is trivially computed once the energy-momentum tensor at finite extension is known. As we have shown these elements can be evaluated on the light-cone provided a spacelike compact direction is chosen. The general relation between systems at finite temperature and finite extension not only connects the Casimir effect of a non-interacting massless field with blackbody radiation it also implies the possibility for phase transitions to occur with the variation in the extension $`L`$ of e.g. the compact $`x^1`$ direction. Specifically in QCD, when $`L`$ decreases beyond $`1.3`$fm the phase transition to the quark-gluon plasma has to take place with a corresponding sudden change in energy density and pressure. Thus light-cone quantization provides an appropriate framework in which phase transitions at finite temperature can be described. Nevertheless a detailed understanding of how such phase transitions arise in the trivial light-cone vacuum remains to be achieved.

## VII Summary

In this work we have discussed the Casimir effect of a non-interacting scalar field in light-cone quantization. We have established that the Casimir effect can be reliably computed provided the separation of the walls enclosing the system is spacelike. This successful evaluation opens the possibility to calculate thermodynamic quantities and in particular to address the issue of phase transitions in finite temperature field theory in the framework of light-cone quantization. If the walls are separated along the $`x^{}`$ direction no regulator independent expression for the observable pressure can be obtained. Based on the covariance of the theory this failure in defining a proper energy momentum tensor has been shown to result from the lightlike separation along the $`x^{}`$ axis. Therefore the same problems will also occur for interacting fields. Compact light-like directions might be approached in some limiting procedure from compact space-like directions. We have studied this possibility by the transition to the infinite momentum frame and by a rotation of a spacelike orientation into the lightlike direction. In both cases the final result has been demonstrated to depend on the order in which the approach to the light-like direction and the limit in the regularization of the quantum fluctuations are performed. We have not discussed here the possibility to resolve this problem by approaching the light-cone metric from a metric with 3 spacelike coordinates. This approach to light-cone quantization has been proposed in the field-theoretic context in FR ; ltly91  and in the context of M-theory in POL99 ; bilal1 ; bilal2 . It has been applied to a detailed analysis of vacuum properties of 2-dimensional gauge theories ltly91 . This limiting procedure also yields for the longitudinal Casimir effect the correct result Stei01 . Here we have not followed this path since in general most of the simplifying features of light-cone quantization are thereby lost. Beyond two dimensions this method is not mandatory. It is not the choice of the metric but rather the choice of a compact $`x^{}`$ direction which is the origin of the difficulties in defining the Casimir effect.

Acknowledgments We thank M. Burkardt and M. Thies for illuminating discussions.


format: text

text:
# Charge density correlations in t-J ladders investigated by the CORE method

## Abstract

Using 4-site plaquette or rung basis decomposition, the CORE method is applied to 2-leg and 4-leg t-J ladders and cylinders. Resulting range-2 effective hamiltonians are studied numerically on *periodic rings* taking full advantage of the translation symmetry as well as the drastic reduction of the Hilbert space. We investigate the role of *magnetic* and *fermionic* degrees of freedom. Spin gaps, pair binding energies and charge correlations are computed and compared to available ED and DMRG data for the full Hamiltonian. Strong evidences for *short range* diagonal stripe correlations are found in *periodic* 4-leg t-J ladders.

Competition between superconducting correlations and charge ordering has long been a challenge to numerical computations supercond ; stripes  of low-dimensional strongly correlated electron systems. Spin and hole-doped ladders DR96  offer an ideal system to investigate the cross-over between one to two dimensions. The 2-leg ladder for example is known to exhibit a robust spin gap at and close to half-filling as well as hole pair binding DRS92 ; HPNSH95 . Dominant power-law d$`_{x^2y^2}`$-like pairing and $`4k_F`$ charge density wave (CDW) correlations at small doping are characteristic of a Luther-Emery (LE) liquid regime LE95 ; LE96 . However, the spin gap magnitude drops sharply as the number of legs is increased, e.g. from $`0.50J`$ in the Heisenberg 2-leg ladder to $`0.190J`$ in the Heisenberg 4-leg ladder ladder\_gaps . Both the increase of the magnetic correlation length (of the undoped ladder) as well as the drastic reduction of the available ladder length for increasing leg number restrict enormously the accuracy of standard numerical techniques like Exact Diagonalisation (ED) and Density Matrix Renormalisation (DMRG) techniques. In addition, the DMRG method is limited (in pratice) to Open Boundary Condition (OBC) in the leg direction.

In this Rapid Communication, we use the Contractor Renormalisation (CORE) method weinstein96 ; altman01  to investigate hole-doped 2-leg and 4-leg ladders capponi02 . Our aim is to get further insights on the issue of pairing and density correlations from the investigation of large enough systems with *Periodic Boundary Conditions* (PBC) in the ladder direction. Such investigations are greatly needed to complement available DMRG calculations using OBC. Our approach is done in two steps; (i) first, using an appropriate partition into small subsystems, we use the CORE method to construct an effective hamiltonianx which integrates out quantum fluctuations at short length scales; (ii) we use ED techniques (supplemented by finite size analysis) to compute various physical properties (pair binding, spin gaps, etc…) and compare them to those of the original model. The method provides new results such as e.g. strong evidences for stripes correlations in *translationally invariant* 4-leg ladders.

We shall consider here a generic n-leg t-J ladder,

$``$ $`=J_{\mathrm{leg}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,a}{}}\stackrel{}{S}_{i,a}\stackrel{}{S}_{i+1,a}+J_{\mathrm{rung}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,a}{}}\stackrel{}{S}_{i,a}\stackrel{}{S}_{i,a+1}`$
$`+`$ $`t_{\mathrm{leg}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,a}{}}(c_{i,a}^{}c_{i+1,a}+h.c.)+t_{\mathrm{rung}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,a}{}}(c_{i,a}^{}c_{i,a+1}+h.c.),`$
where $`c_{i,a}`$ are projected hole fermionic operators. Open (ladders) or closed systems (cylinders) along the rungs with isotropic coupling, $`t_{\mathrm{leg}}=t_{\mathrm{rung}}=1`$ and $`J_{\mathrm{leg}}=J_{\mathrm{rung}}=J`$, will be of interest here.

In order to implement the CORE algorithm the ladders are decomposed in small 4-site sub-units as shown in Fig. 1 whose $`M`$ low-energy states are kept to define a reduced Hilbert space. The full hamiltonian (Charge density correlations in t-J ladders investigated by the CORE method) is then diagonalised on $`N`$ connected units (with OBC) to retain its $`M^N`$ low-energy states. These true eigenstates are then projected on the reduced Hilbert space (tensorial product of the $`M`$ states of each unit) and Gram-Schmidt orthonormalized weinstein96 ; altman01 . An effective hamiltonian containing N-body interactions with identical low-energy spectrum can then be constructed in terms of the reduced basis by a unitary transformation truncated . For sake of simplicity, we shall restrict ourselves to the range-2 approximation($`N=2`$capponi02 .

At half-filling, retaining in each 4-site unit only the lowest singlet and triplet states (4 states) gives excellent results capponi02 . Away from half-filling, the simplest truncation, referred to as “B” approximation, is to include, in addition, the lowest singlet hole pair on the 4-site unit (of d-wave symmetry in the case of a plaquette). Formally, one can define 4 hard-core bosonic (plaquette or rung) operators describing the 4 possible transitions from the singlet half-filled GS (vacuum) to one component of the triplet state, $`t_{\alpha ,i}`$, or to the hole pair state, $`b_i`$ (Ref. riera02, ). The effective B-hamiltonian $`^B`$ can then be written as a sum of a simple bilinear kinetic term $`^b+^t`$ and a quartic interaction $`^{int}`$ (Refs. altman01, ; capponi02, ),

$`^b`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_0+ϵ_b{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}b_i^{}b{}_{}{}^{}{}_{i}{}^{}J_b{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\left(b_i^{}b{}_{}{}^{}{}_{j}{}^{}+\text{H.c.}\right)`$ (2)
$`^t`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_t{\displaystyle \underset{i\alpha }{}}t_{\alpha i}^{}t{}_{}{}^{}{}_{\alpha i}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{J_t}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ij}{}}(t_{\alpha i}^{}t{}_{}{}^{}{}_{\alpha j}{}^{}+\text{H.c.})`$ (3)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{J_{tt}}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ij}{}}(t_{\alpha i}^{}t_{\alpha j}^{}+\text{H.c.}),`$
$`^{int}`$ $`=`$ $`V_b{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}n_{bi}n_{bj}+{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}[V_0(t_it_j)_0^{}(t_it_j)_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ (4)
$`+V_1(t_it_j)_1^{}(t_it_j){}_{}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}+V_2(t_it_j)_2^{}(t_it_j){}_{}{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}]`$
$`J_{bt}{\displaystyle \underset{ij\alpha }{}}(b_i^{}b{}_{}{}^{}{}_{j}{}^{}t_{\alpha j}^{}t{}_{}{}^{}{}_{\alpha i}{}^{}+\text{h.c.})`$
$`+V_{bt}{\displaystyle \underset{ij\alpha }{}}(b_i^{}b{}_{}{}^{}{}_{i}{}^{}t_{\alpha j}^{}t{}_{}{}^{}{}_{\alpha j}{}^{}+b_j^{}b{}_{}{}^{}{}_{j}{}^{}t_{\alpha i}^{}t{}_{}{}^{}{}_{\alpha i}{}^{}),`$
where $`(t_it_j)_S^{}`$ creates two triplets on plaquettes $`i`$ and $`j`$, which are coupled into total spin $`S`$. Such an effective hamiltonian may serve for analytic and numerical treatments. Its parameters listed for $`J=0.35`$ and $`J=0.5`$ in table 1 are consistent with those found for the Hubbard modelaltman01 . Although, $`^B`$ gives already a faithful description of the physics of the original model, a systematic improvement can be done by adding to the above local basis 4 extra “fermionic” states corresponding to the degenerate ($`S_z=\pm 1/2`$, even and odd chirality or parity) single hole GS of the 4-site unit (hereafter referred to as “BF” approximation).

The 2-leg t-J ladder offers an ideal system to test the efficiency of the CORE method and the choice of the plaquette decomposition. As seen from the behavior of the pair-binding energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }_P=2E_0(n_h=1)E_0(n_h=2)E_0(n_h=0)`$ plotted in Fig. 2(a) and from the plaquette charge density-density correlation in the two hole GS of the BF-hamiltonian plotted in Fig 3(a), pairs are found to be strongly bound and localized almost on a single plaquette. This confirms *a posteriori* the relevance of CORE and of the local basis. Furthermore, the finite size scaling of the spin gap for a fixed number of $`n_h=2`$ holes (see Fig. 2(b)) or at $`1/8`$ hole density (Fig. 2(c)) gives gaps with 10-20% accuracy in comparison to existing numerical data poil00 . Due to the small size of the hole pairs, accurate results are obtained even when fermionic excitations are not included. Note that the effective models lead to a smooth finite size behavior, in contrast to the original t-J model where “band-filling” effects may lead to oscillatory behaviors as seen in Figs. 2.

We point out the qualitative agreement between our results and those of Siller et al. siller01  who used a more involved hard-core charged boson model with longer range repulsive interactions (giving rise to a Luttinger liquid behavior), but neglected both fermionic and gapped triplet excitations siller01 . Our more systematic and general treatment using the B-hamiltonian gives a similar qualitative picture as can be seen from the charge correlations shown in Fig.3(a); we observe the characteristic 4kF-CDW spatial oscillations of the LE phase showing the same number of maxima as the number of hole pairs. Let us emphasize that this is also in agreement with DMRG calculations siller01 . Our approach performed on finite homogeneous systems is then complementary to the DMRG technique using OBC.

Although the agreement with the hard-core charged boson model is qualitatively good, we believe that including magnetic triplet excitations in the local basis is nevertheless important to describe interplay between magnetic and pairing correlations. For example, it is known that the lowest triplet excitation in a 2 hole doped (or very weakly doped) t-J ladder consists of a hole pair-magnon boundstate poil00 . Indeed, the extrapolated value of the spin gap in the presence of 2 holes (see Fig. 2(b)) is lower than that of the undoped ladder ($`0.5J`$) and than the hole pair binding energy (shown in Fig. 2(a)). Moreover, as seen in Fig.3(b), the correlation between the hole pair density and the plaquette $`S_z`$-component clearly shows an enhancement at short distance note1 .

We finish the investigation of the 2-leg ladder by using the effective Hamiltonian to calculate the Luttinger liquid parameter $`K_\rho `$ which governs the long distance power-law behavior of the charge correlations related to the unique massless charge mode. Some values of $`K_\rho `$ obtained from the Drude weight $`D`$ and the compressibility $`\kappa `$ note2  as $`K_\rho =\pi \sqrt{D\kappa /2}`$ are listed in table 2. In addition, we also list here the charge velocity $`u_\rho `$ obtained from the relation $`u_\rho =\pi D/K_\rho `$ and which agrees within a few percents to the values obtained directly from the linear dispersion of the charge mode. Note also that these values compare very well to existing ED LE96  and DMRG siller01  data.

We now turn to the investigation of the 4-leg t-J ladder (with OBC along rungs) or cylinder (with PBC along rungs), for which the best choices of unit decomposition are depicted in Fig. 1(b) and Fig. 1(c) respectively. Results for pair binding energies and spin gaps are shown in Fig. 4(a-c). Results for ladders and cylinders are similar although the hole pair binding is much stronger in cylinders where hole pairs are preferably formed on cross-sectional plaquettes (periodic rungs) rather than on “surface” plaquettes. Generically we found that the pair binding energy is larger than the spin gap of the undoped (Heisenberg) system ($`0.190J`$ for the $`4\times L`$ ladder). Therefore, the lowest triplet state in the 2-hole doped (or very lightly doped) 4-leg ladder is similar to a Heisenberg ladder magnon, which may be (or may not be) loosely bound to a hole pair depending whether its excitation energy is lower or equals the magnon energy of the undoped system. Since the data shown on Fig. 4(b) are not fully conclusive we have computed in addition the hole pair density-$`S_z`$ correlation and found, as for the 2-leg ladder case, an enhancement of the spin density on the neighboring sites of the hole pair suggesting, indeed, the existence of a hole pair-magnon boundstate.

Upon increasing doping, as seen from the hole-pair density-density correlation shown in Fig.5, we observe a clear tendency of the hole pairs to align along the diagonal $`(1,\pm 1)`$ directions with a periodicity corresponding to one pair every two plaquettes, a behavior also reported in DMRG calculationswhite97 ; siller02  and reminiscent of the picture of diagonal stripes. Note that real space charge correlations are fully consistent with the power law decay found in the effective charge boson model siller02 .

To conclude, the CORE method is a powerful method to extract effective hamiltonians for strongly correlated models. It allows numerical simulations on significantly larger systems than those available for the original model. We show that including charge *and* spin bosonic excitations gives reliable results as long as the hole pair binding energy is not too small. Results for the effective model of the 2-leg t-J ladder are in excellent agreement with known analytic and numerical data. Within the effective models hole pair-triplet bound states form for both 2-leg and 4-leg ladders, a key feature to be compared to $`SO(5)`$ phenomenological theorieszhang . In addition, the method enables unbiased (since calculated on translationnaly invariant clusters) analysis of hole pair density correlations. While $`4k_F`$-CDW correlations are found in 2-leg ladders, our computations provide clear evidences in favor of short range diagonal stripes in 4-leg ladders.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank IDRIS (Orsay) for allocation of CPU time. We also acknowledge useful discussions with E. Altman, A. Auerbach and S.C. Zhang.


text:
# Topological protection and quantum noiseless subsystems

## Abstract

Encoding and manipulation of quantum information by means of topological degrees of freedom provides a promising way to achieve natural fault-tolerance that is built-in at the physical level. We show that this topological approach to quantum information processing is a particular instance of the notion of computation in a noiseless quantum subsystem. The latter then provide the most general conceptual framework for stabilizing quantum information and for preserving quantum coherence in topological and geometric systems.

Quantum information is sensitive: more bad things can happen to a quantum bit than to a classical bit . A variety of schemes for protecting quantum information have been developed, including quantum error correction codes , decoherence free subspaces , noiseless subsystems , bang-bang decoupling , and topological quantum computation . The first four of these techniques are closely related to each other and can be described in a simple unified framework based on representations of the algebra of errors . This paper shows that topological quantum computation also falls into the error-algebra framework. This result suggests that methods for preserving quantum coherence in general fall within a unified algebraic framework.

In the error-algebra framework quantum information is protected by using symmetry. The symmetry that protects quantum information can either exist naturally in the interaction of the quantum information processing system with its environment, as in the case of decoherence free subspaces and noiseless subsystems; or the symmetry can be induced by adding additional dynamics as in the case of bang bang decoupling; or the symmetry can exist implicitly as in quantum error correcting codes. The role of explicit, dynamical, and implicit symmetries in stabilizing quantum states and preserving quantum coherence of course goes far beyond quantum information processing: preservation of coherence via symmetry plays a role in virtually all quantum systems. One apparent exception to this rule is the case of topological quantum systems, in which topological degrees of freedom are intrinsically resilient to local errors. Although topological quantum computation is related to toric error correcting codes , the physical mechanism by which it preserves quantum information goes beyond toric codes. It is an interesting question, then, whether topological quantum computation in particular, and topological quantum systems in general, can be treated in a unified framework along with the above mechanisms. This paper shows that the answer to this question is Yes.

First, review briefly the way in which symmetry protects quantum information . Suppose that one has a quantum system $`S`$ with Hilbert space $`\text{ }\mathrm{C}^d`$, interacting with an environment. The effect of the environment on the system is given by a set of error operators $`\{E_\alpha \}`$: each $`E_\alpha `$ represents some bad thing that can happen to the quantum system. Sums of arbitrary products of error operators together with their Hermitian conjugates generate the error algebra $`𝒜`$. This error algebra is the fundamental object in the algebraic approach to protecting quantum information: it contains all the information about the quantum information-stabilizing strategies. Let $`𝒜^{}=\{X:[X,E_\alpha ]=0\}`$ be the commutant of the error algebra. The elements of the unitary part $`𝒰(𝒜^{})`$ of $`𝒜^{}`$ are symmetries for the error algebra $`𝒜.`$

The degrees of freedom associated with observables in $`𝒜^{}`$ are noiseless ones : they are by definition decoupled from the noise processes enacted by the elements of $`𝒜.`$ These noiseless observables give rise to decoherence free subspaces and noiseless subsystems as follows. It is a basic theorem of representations of algebras that the Hilbert space $``$ then decomposes as follows

$$_J\text{ }\mathrm{C}^{n_J}\text{ }\mathrm{C}^{d_J}.$$
(1)
where the $`J`$ label the different irreducible representations of the algebras $`𝒜`$ and $`𝒜^{}`$, $`d_J`$ is the dimension of the $`J`$’th irreducible representation of $`𝒜`$, and $`n_J`$ is the dimension of the $`J`$’th irreducible representation of $`𝒜^{}`$. (Formally, this decomposition of the Hilbert space into sums of tensor product spaces corresponds to the so-called central decomposition : $`𝒜_{J𝒥}𝟙_{𝕟_𝕁}𝕄(𝕕_𝕁,\text{ }\mathrm{C})`$, where $`M`$ is the set of $`d_J\times d_J`$ matrices over $`\text{ }\mathrm{C}`$.) The tensor product structure arises naturally because members of $`𝒜`$ and $`𝒜^{}`$ commute: in each term in the sum, the error operators in $`𝒜`$ act on the subsystem $`\text{ }\mathrm{C}^{d_J}`$ while leaving the noiseless subsystem $`\text{ }\mathrm{C}^{n_J}`$ unchanged. The decomposition (1) shows that nontrivial noiseless subsystems exist only when $`𝒜`$ has a noncommutative symmetry group $`𝒢𝒰(𝒜)`$. In the particular case in which $`d_J=1`$ one has an instance of a noiseless code or decoherence-free subspace . Bang-bang decoupling is a method for inducing an effective symmetry in the error dynamics that gives rise to effective noiseless subsystems. Finally, in , it was shown that this tensor product decomposition is at the root of quantum error correcting codes: errors act on the subsystem $`\text{ }\mathrm{C}^{d_J}`$ while the quantum information lying in the encoded subsystem $`\text{ }\mathrm{C}^{n_J}`$ remains unchanged. So virtually all known methods for protecting quantum information fall within the error-algebra formalism.

This formalism is also at the root of performing quantum information processing in a fault-tolerant fashion. Quantum manipulations within a noiseless subsystem can be performed by applying transformations from $`𝒜^{}.`$ This last technique allows one to perform universal quantum computation using quantum logic gates (such as swap gates) that are not universal on the entire Hilbert space, a phenomenon known as encoded universality .

For what follows it is important to notice that the state-space structure (1) is reminiscent of superselection . In superselection theory the algebra $`𝒜`$ is viewed as the one generated by the whole set of physical observables rather than the one associated to a set of distinguished interactions (the error operators). In this context $`𝒰(𝒜^{})`$ is called the gauge group. The operators of $`𝒜`$ are not able to change the quantum numbers associated with the gauge transformations and the state space accordingly splits in a direct sum of non-connected sectors. Accordingly the elements of the gauge group are operators that commute with all the physical quantities and their eigenvalues therefore cannot be changed by any physical operation. It is well-known that such a situation can occur only in the cases in which $`𝒜`$ describes an infinite set of degrees of freedom, the paradigmatic case being provided by field theory . The different sectors describe now different inequivalent phases in which the system can exist; a major illustration of this state of affairs is provided by the phenomenon of spontaneous symmetry breaking.

Another very important occurrence of superselection is given by the quantization of systems whose classical configuration manifold $``$ has non-trivial topology, e.g., with fundamental group $`\pi _1()Id`$ . In this case the superselection sectors correspond to inequivalent quantizations labelled by irreducible representations of $`\pi _1()`$ . When $``$ is the manifold associated with $`N`$ indistinguishable particles living in $`d`$ dimensions the different irreducible representations describe different quantum statistics . For $`d3,`$ $`\pi _1()`$ is given by the permutation group $`𝒮_N`$, while for $`d=2`$ the fundamental group is the braid group $`_N`$. Particles associated with one-dimensional irreducible representations of $`_N`$ are called abelian anyons, and particles associated with higher dimensional representations are called nonabelian anyons. This latter class of systems is exactly the one that has been argued to be useful for quantum computation .

Now we apply the error algebra framework to topological information protection. The prototype system in which we are interested is a lattice $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ having attached to each of its sites (or edges) a finite-dimensional quantum system, e.g., a qubit, with state space $`_i`$. The lattice $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is supposed to be embeddable in a two-dimensional surface $``$ with genus $`g.`$ For example, the lattice could be a square lattice with periodic boundary conditions, embedded in a torus. The interaction among the local quantum systems is described by a local Hamiltonian $`H_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ having a $`D(g)`$-dimensional degenerate ground state $`𝒞_\mathrm{\Lambda }_{i\mathrm{\Lambda }}_i`$, where $`D`$ is an exponential function of its argument. $`𝒞`$ is the code subspace. The key idea is that $`H_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is designed in such a way that the ground-state degeneracy has a topological origin. This means that orthogonal elements of $`𝒞`$ have to correspond to different eigenvalues of global observables.

For some of the systems studied in  a complete set of commuting global observables in $`𝒞`$ can be constructed as follows. Let $`\{\gamma \}_{i=1}^{2g}`$ denote the set of non-contractible loops generating the homology group $`H_1()`$ of $``$ . One can consider the operators $`X_\gamma _{i\gamma }x_i`$ where the $`x_i\text{End}(_i)`$ are suitable site operators e.g., $`\sigma _i^z.`$ For the sake of simplicity assume that the $`X_\gamma `$’s are hermitian self-inverse operators i.e., $`X_\gamma ^2=𝟙.`$ If this is the case $`𝒞`$ can be decomposed in terms of the $`2^{2g}`$ joint eigenvectors of the $`X_{\gamma _i}`$ i.e., $`𝒞=\text{span}\{|J|j_1,\mathrm{},j_{2g}\}`$ where $`X_{\gamma _i}|J=j_i|J(j_i𝐙_2\{1,1\}).`$

We denote by $`𝒜_{glob}`$ the abelian algebra generated by the $`X_{\gamma _i}.`$ Local operators $`X𝒜_{loc}𝒜_{glob}^{}`$ cannot by definition modify the global properties described by the $`X_{\gamma _i}`$’s. Local operators therefore a) cannot induce tunneling between orthogonal ground states, and b) cannot distinguish elements in the code subspace $`𝒞.`$ It follows that $`X𝒜_{loc}`$ one has $`J^{}|X|J=\delta _{J,J^{}}c(X),`$ where $`c:𝒜_{loc}\text{ }\mathrm{C}.`$ If $`\mathrm{\Pi }_𝒞`$ is the projector over the ground-state $`𝒞`$ a compact way to express the condition above is given by

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_𝒞X\mathrm{\Pi }_𝒞=c(X)\mathrm{\Pi }_𝒞,X𝒜_{loc}$$
(2)
This latter relation amounts to saying that $`𝒞`$ behaves as an error correcting code with respect the class of errors represented by local operators .

The vector space generated by the action of local operators over $`𝒞`$ comprises the whole of $`_\lambda `$. Relations (2) above imply that the subspaces $`𝒜_{loc}|J`$ for different $`J`$’s are orthogonal and isomorphic. It follows that one has the following splitting according to the irreducible representations of $`𝒜_{glob}`$:

$$_\mathrm{\Lambda }=_{J𝐙_2^{2g}}𝒜_{loc}|J𝒞^{}𝒞$$
(3)
where $`𝒞^{}`$ is a $`2^{\mathrm{ln}\text{dim}_\mathrm{\Lambda }2g}`$-dimensional factor associated with local degrees of fredom. This factor is associated with the syndrome measurements for quantum error correction, its local nature implies that those measurements can be performed with elements belonging to $`𝒜_{loc}.`$

By comparing Eq. (3) with Eq. (1) is not difficult to realize that the following holds:

Proposition. The topologically protected sector $`𝒞`$ of $`_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can be identified with a noiseless subsystem with respect the error algebra generated by local interactions. The associated gauge group is generated by operators with non-trivial topological content.

It is quite important to make clear that all these properties are meant to hold in the limit in which the size $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }|`$ goes to infinity; for finite size systems they are fulfilled only in an approximate way, though with exponential accuracy . Formally equation (2) has then the meaning:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_𝒞X\mathrm{\Pi }_𝒞c(X)\mathrm{\Pi }_𝒞=O(e^{\alpha |\mathrm{\Lambda }|^{1/n}})$$
(4)
where $`\alpha >0`$ and $`n`$ is an integer. It is just when $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }|\mathrm{}`$ the $`𝒜_{loc}|J`$ become truly disjointed sectors. In this limit one has an effective state-space splitting having a topological origin also known as homotopical superselection rule . In the finite $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }|`$ case there is always a (small) chance of a local perturbation inducing tunnelling between different $`|J`$’s and of having different diagonal elements in $`𝒞.`$

The result stated in the proposition above — in view of the general connections between error correcting codes and noiseless subsystems already established in  and  — is not conceptually totally surprising. On the other hand it represents a novel and natural physics-based instance of those connections. Moreover in this way we are also pointing out that, after tracing over the local degrees of freedom i.e., $`𝒞^{},`$ one need not perform any active recovery from the error: a completely passive stabilization is achieved.

A very interesting situation is when our system is gapped, this means that there is a finite energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ between the ground and first excited states that remains finite even in the large size limit. In this case, every local modification of the ground-state results in a finite increase of energy: the system is incompressible. Prototypes of this kind of systems are provided by fractional quantum Hall effect fluids and spin liquids .

In this case small perturbations $`X𝒜_{loc}`$ are ineffective in inducing tunnelling between the ground and the excited states (not just among ground states). Indeed from elementary perturbation theory one has that the amplitude for those tunneling process scale as $`k/\mathrm{\Delta }<<1,`$ where $`k`$ is the typical strength of matrix element of $`X`$ between ground and excited states. Reasoning again in perturbation-theoretic fashion it is clear that this relation along with Eq. (2) implies that ground state degeneracy is robust against small and local perturbations. This is a signature of its topological nature. It has been recently argued that this kind of stability result might be generic for quantum spin systems in lattices with short range interactions . Moreover some (exotic) spin models whose ground states are robust for all weak enough local pertubations have been explicitly constructed

Quantum information manipulation. The primary purpose of this paper is to identify in detail the connection between topological protection of quantum information and the error-algebra formalism of protecting quantum information via noiseless subsystems, quantum error correcting codes, etc. Now that that task has been performed, we would like to use the general formalism developed above to address the important problem of the manipulation of topologically encoded quantum information. The actual way in which universal topological quantum computation is performed depends strongly on the underlying physical models: the error-algebra formalism allows us to abstract certain common features of these models.

Within the described error-algebra framework, it is possible to describe how to perform quantum computation within the code subspace by creating local excitations and by moving them around the lattice. The key point here is that in the topological models we are examining the Hamiltonian spectrum comprising (non-abelian) localized anyonic excitations . By spatially exchanging those excitations one can enact operations that are able to induce coupling between different topological sectors. Moreover these operations will depend just on some global i.e., topological, feature of the exchange and therefore are stable against any local perturbation.

Acting on $`𝒞`$ with $`N`$-site operators $`X_{j_k}^{\alpha _k}`$ creates an excited state with $`N`$ local excitations (the $`\alpha `$’s labels the different possible “colors ”). These excited states are degenerate as long as the the $`j`$’s are kept far apart . One can then build a degenerate subspace endowed with a bi-partite (local and global) tensor product structure $`_\alpha ^N:=\text{span}\{_{k=1}^NX_{j_k}^{\alpha _k}𝒞/lkj_łj_k\}𝒞_\alpha ^{}𝒞.`$ The basis states in $`_J^N(\alpha )`$ are labelled by the locations $`j_1,\mathrm{},j_N`$ of the $`N`$ local excitations e.g., anyon-antianyon pairs. In order to perform quantum manipulations one resorts to the anyonic nature of these excited states. Excitations can be moved about the lattice, either by applying local dynamical swap operations (), or by dragging them adiabatically e.g., using an external potential , along some path with non-trivial braiding pattern $`b`$. Moving one excitation around another enacts an element of the braid group $`_N`$, which in turn performs a quantum logic operation on the quantum information registered in the code subspace. Finally the excitations are annihilated (fusion): the result of the computation is registered in the local state of the system after fusion has taken place.

We denote by $`\rho `$ the particular high-dimensional representation of the Braid group model involved in the given topological model. The sequence of excitation, braiding, and fusion can be schematically summarized by the following map chain

$$𝒞\stackrel{_kX_k}{}_\alpha ^N\stackrel{\rho (b)}{}_\alpha ^N\stackrel{_kX_k^{}}{}𝒞,$$
(5)
it is important to note here that only the intermediate braiding step $`\rho (\gamma )`$ has a nontrivial topological content and can therefore change the global quantum numbers.

The braid elements $`\rho (\gamma )`$ are expressible as an holonomy of a suitable statistical connection ; from this perspective the computational scheme sketched above provides a particular instance of the so-called holonomic approach to quantum computation . In this kind of scheme information is encoded in a degenerate eigenspace of a parametric family of (isodegenerate) Hamiltonians and manipulated by driving the parameters along suitable adiabatic paths. This enact a transformation of the encoding space into itself via the holonomy associated with the Wilczek-Zee non-abelian connection i.e., gauge potential, generated by the Hamiltionian family . In the topological case under examination the manifold of control parameters is given by the the set of the coordinates of the anyonic excitations themselves. When the statistical connection has an holonomy group coinciding with whole set of unitary transformations over $`𝒞`$ the full computational power is achieved . In this case universal fault-tolerant manipulations can be performed on the coding ground state $`𝒞.`$ (Such computation is an example of encoded universality.) The common holonomic nature of geometric and topological quantum computation suggests that conceptually there is a sort of continuous path from purely geometric to purely topological quantum information processing schemes. In order to optimize the fault-tolerance features one might think of designing non-abelian Wilczek-Zee connections with maximal topological content.

Conclusions. In this paper we discussed the relation between the topological approach to fault-tolerant quantum information processing and the quantum error correction-avoidance strategies. A unified view of this latter class of by-now standard techniques is provided by the algebraic notion of noiseless subsystem. We showed that this notion is powerful enough to encompass even the former class: topologically protected quantum codes are an instance of noiseless subsystem. The crucial point consists in the separation of local and global degrees of freedom by means of the associated observable algebras. Morever we pointed out how information processing within this kind of noiseless subsystems is then achieved through the holonomic manipulations of (non-abelian) anyonic excitations.


text:
# Universal acyclic resolutions for finitely generated coefficient groups

## 1 Introduction

A space $`X`$ is always assumed to be separable metrizable. The cohomological dimension $`dim_GX`$ of $`X`$ with respect to an abelian group $`G`$ is the least number $`n`$ such that $`\stackrel{ˇ}{H}^{n+1}(X,A;G)=0`$ for every closed subset $`A`$ of $`X`$. The covering dimension $`dimX`$ coincides with the integral cohomological dimension $`dim_{}X`$ if $`X`$ is finite dimensional. In 1987 Dranishnikov  showed that there is an infinite dimensional compactum (=compact metric space) with finite integral cohomological dimension. In 1978 Edwards discovered his resolution theorem  which shows that despite Dranishnikov’s example the dimension functions $`dim`$ and $`dim_{}`$ are closely related even for infinite dimensional compacta. The Edwards resolution theorem says that a compactum of $`dim_{}n`$ can be obtained as the image of a cell-like map defined on a compactum of $`dimn`$. A compactum $`X`$ is cell-like if any map $`f:XK`$ from $`X`$ to a CW-complex $`K`$ is null-homotopic. A map is cell-like if its fibers are cell-like. The reduced $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{C}}`$ech cohomology groups of a cell-like compactum are trivial with respect to any group $`G`$.

Below are stated a few theorems representing main directions of generalizing the Edwards resolution theorem. We recall some notions used in the theorems.

A space is $`G`$-acyclic if its reduced $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{C}}`$ech cohomology groups modulo $`G`$ are trivial, a map is $`G`$-acyclic if every fiber is $`G`$-acyclic. By the Vietoris-Begle theorem a $`G`$-acyclic map of compacta cannot raise the cohomological dimension $`dim_G`$.

A compactum $`X`$ is approximately $`n`$-connected if any embedding of $`X`$ into an ANR has the $`UV^n`$-property, i.e. for every neighborhood $`U`$ of $`X`$ there is a smaller neighborhood $`XVU`$ such that the inclusion $`VU`$ induces the zero homomorphism of the homotopy groups in $`dimn`$. An approximately $`n`$-connected compactum has trivial reduced $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{C}}`$ech cohomology groups in $`dimn`$ with respect to any group $`G`$. A map is called a $`UV^n`$-map if every fiber is approximately $`n`$-connected.

Let $`K`$ be a CW-complex. A space is said to be $`K`$-acyclic if every map from the space to $`K`$ is null-homotopic and a map is said to be $`K`$-acyclic if every fiber is $`K`$-acyclic.

###### Theorem 1.1

() Let $`p`$ be a prime number and let $`X`$ be a compactum with $`dim__pXn`$. Then there are a compactum $`Z`$ with $`dimZn`$ and a $`_p`$-acyclic $`UV^{n1}`$-map $`r:ZX`$ from $`Z`$ onto $`X`$.

###### Theorem 1.2

() Let $`G`$ be an abelian group and let $`X`$ be a compactum with $`dim_GXn`$, $`n2`$. Then there are a compactum $`Z`$ with $`dim_GZn`$ and $`dimZn+1`$ and a $`G`$-acyclic map $`r:ZX`$ from $`Z`$ onto $`X`$.

###### Theorem 1.3

() Let $`X`$ be a compactum with $`dim_{}Xn2`$. Then there exist a compactum $`Z`$ with $`dimZn`$ and a cell-like map $`r:ZX`$ from $`Z`$ onto $`X`$ such that for every integer $`k2`$ and every group $`G`$ such that $`dim_GXk`$ we have $`dim_GZk`$.

Each of these theorems emphasizes different aspects of the Edwards resolution. The special feature of Theorem 1.3 is that it takes care of all possible cohomological dimensions bigger than $`1`$. It is very natural to try to generalize Theorems 1.1 and 1.2 in the spirit of Theorem 1.3. As a part of this project this paper is mainly devoted to proving the following version of Theorem 1.1.

###### Theorem 1.4

Let $`X`$ be a compactum. Then for every integer $`n2`$ there are a compactum $`Z`$ of $`dimn`$ and a surjective $`UV^{n1}`$-map $`r:ZX`$ having the property that for every finitely generated abelian group $`G`$ and every integer $`k2`$ such that $`dim_GXkn`$ we have that $`dim_GZk`$ and $`r`$ is $`G`$-acyclic.

Theorem 1.4 can be reformulated in terms of extensional dimension . The extensional dimension of $`X`$ is said not to exceed a CW-complex $`K`$, written $`\mathrm{e}\mathrm{dim}XK`$, if for every closed subset $`A`$ of $`X`$ and every map $`f:AK`$ there is an extension of $`f`$ over $`X`$. It is well-known that $`dimXn`$ is equivalent to $`\mathrm{e}\mathrm{dim}X𝕊^n`$ and $`dim_GXn`$ is equivalent to $`\mathrm{e}\mathrm{dim}XK(G,n)`$ where $`K(G,n)`$ is an Eilenberg-Mac Lane complex of type $`(G,n)`$.

The following theorem shows a close connection between cohomological and extensional dimensions.

###### Theorem 1.5

() Let $`X`$ be a compactum and let $`K`$ be a simply connected CW-complex. Consider the following conditions:

(1) $`\mathrm{e}\mathrm{dim}XK`$;

(2) $`dim_{H_i(K)}Xi`$ for every $`i>1`$;

(3) $`dim_{\pi _i(K)}Xi`$ for every $`i>1`$.

Then (2) and (3) are equivalent and (1) implies both (2) and (3). If $`X`$ is finite dimensional then all the conditions are equivalent.

Theorems 1.4 and 1.5 imply

###### Theorem 1.6

Let $`X`$ be a compactum. Then for every integer $`n2`$ there exist a compactum $`Z`$ with $`dimZn`$ and a surjective $`UV^{n1}`$-map $`r:ZX`$ such that for every simply connected CW-complex $`K`$ with finitely generated homotopy groups such that $`\mathrm{e}\mathrm{dim}XK`$ we have $`\mathrm{e}\mathrm{dim}ZK`$ and $`r`$ is $`K`$-acyclic.

Proof. Let $`Z`$ and $`r:ZX`$ be as in Theorem 1.4. Let a simply connected CW-complex $`K`$ with finitely generated homotopy groups be such that $`\mathrm{e}\mathrm{dim}XK`$. Then $`H_{}(K)`$ are finitely generated and by Theorem 1.5, $`dim_{H_i(K)}Xi`$ and $`dim_{\pi _i(K)}Xi`$ for every $`i>1`$. Hence by Theorem 1.4, $`dim_{H_i(K)}Zi`$ for every $`1<in`$. Since $`dimZn`$, $`dim_{H_i(K)}Zi`$ for $`i>n`$ and it follows from Theorem 1.5 that $`\mathrm{e}\mathrm{dim}ZK`$.

Let $`xX`$ and let $`Cr^1(x)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }r^1(x)`$ be the cone and the suspension of $`r^1(x)`$ respectively. Then $`\stackrel{ˇ}{H}^{i+1}(Cr^1(x),r^1(x);\pi _i(K))=\stackrel{ˇ}{H}^{i+1}(Cr^1(x)/r^1(x);\pi _i(K))=\stackrel{ˇ}{H}^{i+1}(\mathrm{\Sigma }r^1(x);\pi _i(K))=\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{ˇ}{H}}^i(r^1(x);\pi _i(K))`$. Recall that $`dim_{\pi _i(K)}Xi`$ for every $`i>1`$ and hence, by Theorem 1.4, $`r`$ is $`\pi _i(K)`$-acyclic for $`1<in`$. Then, since $`dimZn`$, $`\stackrel{ˇ}{H}^i(r^1(x);\pi _i(K))=0`$ for every $`i>1`$ and therefore $`\stackrel{ˇ}{H}^{i+1}(Cr^1(x),r^1(x);\pi _i(K))=0`$ for $`i>1`$. Since $`Cr^1(x)`$ is finite dimensional it follows from Obstruction Theory that every map from $`r^1(x)`$ to $`K`$ extends over $`Cr^1(x)`$ and hence is null-homotopic. Thus we showed that $`r`$ is $`K`$-acyclic. $`\mathrm{}`$

Theorem 1.6 is equivalent to Theorem 1.4. To show this we need to show that Theorem 1.6 implies Theorem 1.4. Let $`X`$ be a compactum, let $`n2`$ and let $`r:ZX`$ satisfy the conclusions of Theorem 1.6. Then for every finitely generated abelian group $`G`$ with $`dim_GXkn`$, $`k2`$ we have that $`dim_GZk`$. Let $`xX`$. The $`K(G,k)`$-acyclicity of $`r`$ implies that $`\stackrel{ˇ}{H}^k(r^1(x);G)=0`$, the fact that $`r`$ is $`UV^{n1}`$ implies that $`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{ˇ}{H}}^i(r^1(x);G)=0`$ for $`ik1`$ and finally $`dim_GZk`$ implies that $`\stackrel{ˇ}{H}^i(r^1(x);G)=0`$ for $`i>k`$. All this together implies that $`r^1(x)`$ is $`G`$-acyclic and hence Theorems 1.6 and 1.4 are equivalent.

It is known that Theorem 1.4 does not hold for arbitrary groups $`G`$ even if we do not require that $`r`$ is $`UV^{n1}`$, see . However allowing in Theorem 1.4 for the dimension of $`Z`$ to be raised to $`n+1`$ one can drop the restrictions on $`G`$ and obtain the following theorem which we will state without a proof.

###### Theorem 1.7

Let $`X`$ be a compactum. Then for every integer $`n2`$ there are a compactum $`Z`$ of $`dimn+1`$ and a surjective $`UV^{n1}`$-map $`r:ZX`$ having the property that for every abelian group $`G`$ and every integer $`k2`$ such that $`dim_GXkn`$ we have that $`dim_GZk`$ and $`r`$ is $`G`$-acyclic.

Finally let us note that it would be interesting to know if the restriction $`k2`$ in Theorem 1.4 can be omitted.

## 2 Preliminaries

A map between CW-complexes is said to be combinatorial if the preimage of every subcomplex of the range is a subcomplex of the domain.

Let $`M`$ be a simplicial complex and let $`M^{[k]}`$ be the $`k`$-skeleton of $`M`$ (=the union of all simplexes of $`M`$ of $`dimk`$). By a resolution $`EW(M,k)`$ of $`M`$ we mean a CW-complex $`EW(M,k)`$ and a combinatorial map $`\omega :EW(M,k)M`$ such that $`\omega `$ is 1-to-1 over $`M^{[k]}`$. Let $`f:NK`$ be a map of a subcomplex $`N`$ of $`M`$ into a CW-complex $`K`$. The resolution is said to be suitable for $`f`$ if the map $`f\omega |_{\omega ^1(N)}`$ extends to a map $`f^{}:EW(M,k)K`$. We call $`f^{}`$ a resolving map for $`f`$. The resolution is said to be suitable for a compactum $`X`$ if for every simplex $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of $`M`$, $`\mathrm{e}\mathrm{dim}X\omega ^1(\mathrm{\Delta })`$. Note that if $`\omega :EW(M,k)M`$ is a resolution suitable for $`X`$ then for every map $`\varphi :XM`$ there is a map $`\psi :XEW(M,k)`$ such that for every simplex $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of $`M`$, $`(\omega \psi )(\varphi ^1(\mathrm{\Delta }))\mathrm{\Delta }`$. We call $`\psi `$ a combinatorial lifting of $`\varphi `$.

Let $`M`$ be a finite simplicial complex and let $`f:NK`$ be a cellular map from a subcomplex $`N`$ of $`M`$ to a CW-complex $`K`$ such that $`M^{[k]}N`$. A standard way of constructing a resolution suitable for $`f`$ is described in . Such a resolution $`\omega :EW(M,k)M`$ is called the standard resolution of $`M`$ for $`f`$ and it has the following properties:

$`\omega `$ is a map onto and for every simplex $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of $`M`$, $`\omega ^1(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is either contractible or homotopy equivalent to $`K`$;

the (integral) homology groups of $`EW(M,k)`$ are finitely generated if so are the homology groups of $`K`$. This property can be derived from the previous one using the Mayer-Vietoris sequence and induction on the number of simplexes of $`M`$;

$`EW(M,k)`$ is $`(k1)`$-connected if so are $`M`$ and $`K`$;

for every subcomplex $`T`$ of $`M`$, $`\omega |_{\omega ^1(T)}:EW(T,k)=\omega ^1(T)T`$ is the standard resolution of $`T`$ for $`f|_{NT}:NTK`$.

All groups are assumed to be abelian and functions between groups are homomorphisms. $`𝒫`$ stands for the set of primes. Let $`G`$ be a group and $`p𝒫`$. We say that $`gG`$ is $`p`$-torsion if $`p^kg=0`$ for some integer $`k1`$. $`\mathrm{Tor}_pG`$ stands for the subgroup of the $`p`$-torsion elements of $`G`$. $`G`$ is $`p`$-torsion if $`\mathrm{Tor}_pG=G`$, $`G`$ is $`p`$-torsion free if $`\mathrm{Tor}_pG=0`$ and $`G`$ is $`p`$-divisible if for every $`gG`$ there is $`hG`$ such that $`ph=g`$. $`G`$ is $`p`$-local if it is $`q`$-divisible and $`q`$-torsion free for every $`q𝒫`$, $`qp`$.

Let $`G`$ be a group, let $`\alpha :LM`$ be a surjective combinatorial map of a CW-complex $`L`$ and a finite simplicial complex $`M`$ and let $`n`$ be a positive integer such that $`\stackrel{~}{H}_i(\alpha ^1(\mathrm{\Delta });G)=0`$ for every $`i<n`$ and every simplex $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of $`M`$. One can show by induction on the number of simplexes of $`M`$ using the Mayer-Vietoris sequence and the Five Lemma that $`\alpha _{}:\stackrel{~}{H}_i(L;G)\stackrel{~}{H}_i(M;G)`$ is an isomorphism for $`i<n`$. We will refer to this fact as the combinatorial Vietoris-Begle theorem.

We need the following slightly more precise version of Proposition 2.1, (i) of .

###### Proposition 2.1

Let $`2kn`$, $`p𝒫`$ and let $`M`$ be an $`(n1)`$-connected finite simplicial complex. Let $`\omega :EW(M,k)M`$ be the standard resolution for a cellular map $`f:NK(_p,k)`$ from a subcomplex $`N`$ of $`M`$ containing $`M^{[k]}`$. Then $`\pi _i(EW(M,k))`$ is $`p`$-torsion for every $`1in1`$.

Proof. Recall that $`\omega `$ is a combinatorial surjective map and for every simplex $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of $`M`$, $`\omega ^1(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is either contractible or homotopy equivalent to $`K(_p,k)`$. $`EW(M,k)`$ is $`(k1)`$-connected since so are $`M`$ and $`K(_p,k)`$, and $`H_i(EW(M,k))`$ are finitely generated since so are $`H_i(K(_p,k))`$.

By the generalized Hurewicz theorem the groups $`H_i(K(_p,k))`$, $`i1`$ are $`p`$-torsion and therefore $`H_i(K(_p,k))`$, $`i1`$ are $`p`$-local. Let $`q𝒫`$ and $`qp`$. From the $`p`$-locality of $`H_i(K(_p,k))`$, $`i1`$ it follows that $`H_i(K(_p,k);_q)=0`$, $`i1`$. Since $`M`$ is $`(n1)`$-connected, the combinatorial Vietoris-Begle theorem implies that $`H_i(EW(M,k);_q)=0`$, $`1in1`$. Then from the universal coefficient theorem it follows that $`H_i(EW(M,k))_q=0`$ for $`1in1`$ and every $`q𝒫`$, $`qp`$. Since $`H_i(EW(M,k))`$ is finitely generated, the last property implies that $`H_i(EW(M,k))`$, $`1in1`$ is $`p`$-torsion and by the generalized Hurewicz theorem $`\pi _i(EW(M,k))`$, $`1in1`$ is $`p`$-torsion.
$`\mathrm{}`$
In the proof of Theorem 1.4 we will also use the following facts.

###### Proposition 2.2

() Let $`K`$ be a simply connected CW-complex such that $`K`$ has only finitely many non-trivial homotopy groups. Let $`X`$ be a compactum such that $`dim_{\pi _i(K)}Xi`$ for $`i>1`$. Then $`\mathrm{e}\mathrm{dim}XK`$.

Let $`K^{}`$ be a simplicial complex. We say that maps $`h:KK^{}`$, $`g:LL^{}`$, $`\alpha :LK`$ and $`\alpha ^{}:L^{}K^{}`$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}L& \stackrel{\alpha }{}& K\\ g& & h& & \\ L^{}& \stackrel{\alpha ^{}}{}& K^{}\end{array}$$

combinatorially commute if for every simplex $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of $`K^{}`$ we have that $`(\alpha ^{}g)((h\alpha )^1(\mathrm{\Delta }))\mathrm{\Delta }`$. (The direction in which we want the maps $`h,g,\alpha `$ and $`\alpha ^{}`$ to combinatorially commute is indicated by the first map in the list. Thus saying that $`\alpha ^{},h,g`$ and $`\alpha `$ combinatorially commute we would mean that $`(h\alpha )((\alpha ^{}g)^1(\mathrm{\Delta }))\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for every simplex $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of $`K^{}`$.) Recall that a map $`h^{}:KL^{}`$ is a combinatorial lifting of $`h`$ to $`L^{}`$ if for every simplex $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of $`K^{}`$ we have that $`(\alpha ^{}h^{})(h^1(\mathrm{\Delta }))\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

For a simplicial complex $`K`$ and $`aK`$, $`st(a)`$ denotes the union of all the simplexes of $`K`$ containing $`a`$. The following proposition whose proof is left to the reader is a collection of simple combinatorial properties of maps.

###### Proposition 2.3

(i) Let a compactum $`X`$ be represented as the inverse limit $`X=\stackrel{\text{lim}}{}K_i`$ of finite simplicial complexes $`K_i`$ with bonding maps $`h_j^i:K_jK_i`$. Fix $`i`$ and let $`\omega :EW(K_i,k)K_i`$ be a resolution of $`K_i`$ which is suitable for $`X`$. Then there is a sufficiently large $`j`$ such that $`h_j^i`$ admits a combinatorial lifting to $`EW(K_i,k)`$.

(ii) Let $`h:KK^{}`$, $`h^{}:KL^{}`$ and $`\alpha ^{}:L^{}K^{}`$ be maps of a simplicial complex $`K^{}`$ and CW-complexes $`K`$ and $`L^{}`$ such that $`h`$ and $`\alpha ^{}`$ are combinatorial and $`h^{}`$ is a combinatorial lifting of $`h`$. Then there is a cellular approximation of $`h^{}`$ which is also a combinatorial lifting of $`h`$.

(iii) Let $`K`$ and $`K^{}`$ be simplicial complexes, let maps $`h:KK^{}`$, $`g:LL^{}`$, $`\alpha :LK`$ and $`\alpha ^{}:L^{}K^{}`$ combinatorially commute and let $`h`$ be combinatorial. Then

$`g(\alpha ^1(st(x)))\alpha ^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(st(h(x)))`$ and $`h(st(\alpha (z)))st((\alpha ^{}g)(z))`$
for every $`xK`$ and $`zL`$.

## 3 Proof of Theorem 1.4

If $`ndim_{}X`$ then Theorem 1.4 follows from Theorem 1.3 (see also a remark at the end of this section). Hence we may assume that $`n<dim_{}X`$. Then for a finitely generated abelian group $`G`$ the condition $`dim_GXn`$ implies that $`G`$ is torsion. Thus we may assume that the groups $`G`$ considered in the theorem are torsion and therefore the Bockstein basis $`\sigma (G)`$ of $`G`$ consists only of groups of type $`_p`$ ($`p`$ is always assumed to be a prime number).

Represent $`X`$ as the inverse limit $`X=\stackrel{\text{lim}}{}(K_i,h_i)`$ of finite simplicial complexes $`K_i`$ with combinatorial bonding maps $`h_{i+1}:K_{i+1}K_i`$ and the projections $`p_i:XK_i`$ such that for every simplex $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of $`K_i`$, diam$`(p_i^1(\mathrm{\Delta }))1/i`$. We will construct by induction finite simplicial complexes $`L_i`$ and maps $`g_{i+1}:L_{i+1}L_i`$, $`\alpha _i:L_iK_i`$ such that

(a) $`L_i=K_i^{[n]}`$ and $`\alpha _i:L_iK_i`$ is the inclusion. The simplicial structure of $`L_1`$ is induced from $`K_1^{[n]}`$ and the simplicial structure of $`L_i`$, $`i>1`$ is defined as a sufficiently small barycentric subdivision of $`K_i^{[n]}`$. We will refer to this simplicial structure while constructing standard resolutions of $`L_i`$. It is clear that $`\alpha _i`$ is always a combinatorial map;

(b) the maps $`h_{i+1}`$, $`g_{i+1}`$, $`\alpha _{i+1}`$ and $`\alpha _i`$ combinatorially commute. Recall that this means that for every simplex $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of $`K_i`$, $`(\alpha _ig_{i+1})((h_{i+1}\alpha _{i+1})^1(\mathrm{\Delta }))\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

We will construct $`L_i`$ in such a way that $`Z=\stackrel{\text{lim}}{}(L_i,g_i)`$ will admit a map $`r:ZX`$ such that $`Z`$ and $`r`$ satisfy the conclusions of the theorem. Assume that the construction is completed for $`i`$. We proceed to $`i+1`$ as follows.

Let $`dim__pXk`$, $`2kn`$ and let $`f:NK(_p,k)`$ be a cellular map from a subcomplex $`N`$ of $`L_i`$, $`L_i^{[k]}N`$. Let $`\omega _L:EW(L_i,k)L_i`$ be the standard resolution of $`L_i`$ for $`f`$. We are going to construct from $`\omega _L:EW(L_i,k)L_i`$ a resolution $`\omega :EW(K_i,k)K_i`$ of $`K_i`$ suitable for $`X`$. If $`dimK_ik`$ set $`\omega =\alpha _i\omega _L:EW(K_i,k)=EW(L_i,k)K_i`$.

If $`dimK_i>k`$ set $`\omega _k=\alpha _i\omega _L:EW_k(K_i,k)=EW(L_i,k)K_i`$ and we will construct by induction resolutions $`\omega _j:EW_j(K_i,k)K_i`$, $`k+1jdimK_i`$ such that $`EW_j(K_i,k)`$ is a subcomplex of $`EW_{j+1}(K_i,k)`$ and $`\omega _{j+1}`$ extends $`\omega _j`$ for every $`kj<dimK_i`$. Note that saying that an $`(n+1)`$-cell is attached to a CW-complex by a map of degree $`p`$ we mean that the cell is attached by a map $`\varphi `$ from the boundary $`𝕊^n`$ of the cell to the CW-complex such that $`\varphi `$ factors through a map $`𝕊^n𝕊^n`$ of degree $`p`$.

Assume that $`\omega _j:EW_j(K_i,k)K_i`$, $`kj<dimK_i`$ is constructed. For every simplex $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of $`K_i`$ of $`dim=j+1`$ consider the subcomplex $`\omega _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ of $`EW_j(K_i,k)`$. Enlarge $`\omega _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ by attaching cells of $`dim=n+1`$ by maps of degree $`p`$ in order to kill the elements of $`p\pi _n(\omega _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(\mathrm{\Delta }))=\{pa:a\pi _n(\omega _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(\mathrm{\Delta }))\}`$ and attaching cells of $`dim>n+1`$ in order to get a subcomplex with trivial homotopy groups in $`dim>n`$. Let $`EW_{j+1}(K_i,k)`$ be $`EW_j(K_i,k)`$ with all the cells attached for all $`(j+1)`$-dimensional simplexes $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of $`K_i`$ and let $`\omega _{j+1}:EW_{j+1}(K_i,k)K_i`$ be an extension of $`\omega _j`$ sending the interior points of the attached cells to the interior of the corresponding $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

Finally denote $`EW(K_i,k)=EW_j(K_i,k)`$ and $`\omega =\omega _j:EW_j(K_i,k)K_i`$ for $`j=dimK_i`$. Note that since we attach cells only of $`dim>n`$, the $`n`$-skeleton of $`EW(K_i,k)`$ coincides with the $`n`$-skeleton of $`EW(L_i,k)`$.

Let us show that $`EW(K_i,k)`$ is suitable for $`X`$. Fix a simplex $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of $`K_i`$ and denote $`T=\alpha _i^1(\mathrm{\Delta })`$. First note that $`T`$ is $`(n1)`$-connected, $`\omega ^1(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is $`(k1)`$-connected, $`\pi _n(\omega ^1(\mathrm{\Delta }))`$ is $`p`$-torsion, $`\pi _j(\omega ^1(\mathrm{\Delta }))=0`$ for $`jn+1`$ and $`\pi _j(\omega ^1(\mathrm{\Delta }))=\pi _j(\omega _L^1(T))`$ for $`jn1`$.

By Proposition 2.1, $`\pi _j(\omega _L^1(T))`$ is $`p`$-torsion for $`jn1`$. Then $`\pi _j(\omega ^1(\mathrm{\Delta }))`$ is $`p`$-torsion for $`kjn`$. Therefore by Bockstein Theory $`dim_{\pi _j(\omega ^1(\mathrm{\Delta }))}Xdim__pXk`$, $`kjn`$ and hence by Proposition 2.2, $`\mathrm{e}\mathrm{dim}X\omega ^1(\mathrm{\Delta })`$.

Thus we have shown that $`EW(K_i,k)`$ is suitable for $`X`$. Now replacing $`K_{i+1}`$ by $`K_j`$ with a sufficiently large $`j`$ we may assume by (i) of Proposition 2.3 that there is a combinatorial lifting of $`h_{i+1}`$ to $`h_{i+1}^{}:K_{i+1}EW(K_i,k)`$. By (ii) of Proposition 2.3 we replace $`h_{i+1}^{}`$ by its cellular approximation preserving the property of $`h_{i+1}^{}`$ of being a combinatorial lifting of $`h_{i+1}`$.

Then $`h_{i+1}^{}`$ sends the $`n`$-skeleton of $`K_{i+1}`$ to the $`n`$-skeleton of $`EW(K_i,k)`$. Recall that the $`n`$-skeleton of $`EW(K_i,k)`$ is contained in $`EW(L_i,k)`$ and hence one can define $`g_{i+1}=\omega _Lh_{i+1}^{}|_{K_{i+1}^{[n]}}:L_{i+1}=K_{i+1}^{[n]}L_i`$. Finally define a simplicial structure on $`L_{i+1}`$ to be a sufficiently small barycentric subdivision of $`K_{i+1}^{[n]}`$ such that

(c) diam$`g_{i+1}^j(\mathrm{\Delta })1/i`$ for every simplex $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in $`L_{i+1}`$ and $`ji`$
where $`g_i^j=g_{j+1}g_{j+2}\mathrm{}g_i:L_iL_j`$.

It is easy to check that the properties (a) and (b) are satisfied.

Denote $`Z=\stackrel{\text{lim}}{}(L_i,g_i)`$ and let $`r_i:ZL_i`$ be the projections.

Clearly $`dimZn`$. For constructing $`L_{i+1}`$ we used an arbitrary map $`f:NK(_p,k)`$ such that $`dim__pXk`$, $`2kn`$ and $`N`$ is a subcomplex of $`L_i`$ containing $`L_i^{[k]}`$. By a standard reasoning described in detail in the proof of Theorem 1.6,  one can show that choosing $`_p`$ and $`f`$ in an appropriate way for each $`i`$ we can achieve that $`dim__pZk`$ for every integer $`2kn`$ and every $`_p`$ such that $`dim__pXk`$. Then by the Bockstein theorem $`dim_GZk`$ for every finitely generated torsion abelian group $`G`$ such that $`dim_GXk`$, $`2kn`$.

By (iii) of Proposition 2.3, the property (b) implies that for every $`xX`$ and $`zZ`$ the following holds:

(d1) $`g_{i+1}(\alpha _{i+1}^1(st(p_{i+1}(x))))\alpha _i^1(st(p_i(x)))`$ and

(d2) $`h_{i+1}(st((\alpha _{i+1}r_{i+1})(z)))st((\alpha _ir_i)(z))`$.

Define a map $`r:ZX`$ by $`r(z)=\{p_i^1(st((\alpha _ir_i)(z))):i=1,2,\mathrm{}\}`$. Then (d2) implies that $`r`$ is indeed well-defined and continuous.

The properties (d1) and (d2) also imply that for every $`xX`$

$`r^1(x)=\stackrel{\text{lim}}{}(\alpha _i^1(st(p_i(x))),g_i|_{\alpha _i^1(st(p_i(x)))})`$
where the map $`g_i|_{\mathrm{}}`$ is considered as a map to $`\alpha _{i1}^1(st(p_{i1}(x)))`$.

Since $`r^1(x)`$ is not empty for every $`xX`$, $`r`$ is a map onto. Fix $`xX`$ and let us show that $`r^1(x)`$ satisfies the conclusions of the theorem. First note that $`M_i=st(p_i(x))`$ is contractible . Since $`T_i=\alpha _i^1(M_i)`$ is homeomorphic to the $`n`$-skeleton of $`st(p_i(x))`$, $`T_i`$ is $`(n1)`$-connected and hence $`r^1(x)`$ is approximately $`(n1)`$-connected as the inverse limit of $`(n1)`$-connected finite simplicial complexes.

Let $`_p`$ be such that $`dim__pXk`$, $`2kn`$ and assume that $`L_{i+1}`$ is constructed with help of $`f:NK(_p,k)`$. Consider $`T_{i+1}`$ as the $`n`$-skeleton of $`M_{i+1}`$ and denote

$`\beta `$= the inclusion $`:T_{i+1}M_{i+1}`$,

$`\tau =h_{i+1}^{}|_{\mathrm{}}:T_{i+1}\omega _L^1(T_i)`$,

$`\gamma =h_{i+1}^{}|_{\mathrm{}}:M_{i+1}\omega ^1(M_i)`$ and

$`\kappa `$=the inclusion$`:\omega _L^1(T_i)\omega ^1(M_i)`$.

Clearly $`\gamma \beta =\kappa \tau `$. Denote by $`\beta ^{},\tau ^{},\gamma ^{}`$ and $`\kappa ^{}`$ the induced homomorphisms of the $`n`$-dimensional cohomology groups modulo $`_p`$ of the corresponding spaces. Recall that the $`(n+1)`$-cells of $`\omega ^1(M_i)`$ not contained in $`\omega _L^1(T_i)`$ are attached to $`\omega _L^1(T_i)`$ by maps of degree $`p`$. Then $`\kappa ^{}`$ is an isomorphism. Since $`M_{i+1}`$ is contractible, $`\beta ^{}`$ is the zero homomorphism. Thus we obtain that $`\tau ^{}`$ must also be the zero homomorphism. Then, since $`g_{i+1}|_{\mathrm{}}:T_{i+1}T_i`$ factors through $`\tau `$, the map $`g_{i+1}|_{\mathrm{}}`$ induces the zero homomorphism of $`H^n(T_i;_p)`$ and $`H^n(T_{i+1};_p)`$. Now we may assume that $`_p`$ appears in the construction for infinitely many indices $`i`$. Then $`\stackrel{ˇ}{H}^n(r^1(x);_p)=0`$ and since $`r^1(x)`$ is approximately $`(n1)`$-connected and of $`dimn`$ we get that $`r^1(x)`$ is $`_p`$-acyclic.

Let $`G`$ be a finitely generated torsion abelian group such that $`dim_GXn`$. By the Bockstein theorem $`dim__pXn`$ for every $`_p\sigma (G)`$. Then $`r^1(x)`$ is $`_p`$-acyclic for every $`p`$ such that $`\mathrm{Tor}_pG0`$. Hence $`r^1(x)`$ is $`G`$-acyclic and the theorem follows. $`\mathrm{}`$
Remark. It is easy to see that the proof of Theorem 1.4 also works for $``$ regarded as $`_p`$ with $`p=0`$. This way one can avoid the use of Theorem 1.3 in the proof of Theorem 1.4 and make the proof self-contained.

Department of Mathematics
Ben Gurion University of the Negev
P.O.B. 653
Be’er Sheva 84105, ISRAEL
e-mail: mlevine@math.bgu.ac.il