text:
# Echo spectroscopy and quantum stability of trapped atoms

\[

## Abstract

We investigate the dephasing of ultra cold $`{}_{}{}^{85}Rb`$ atoms trapped in an optical dipole trap and prepared in a coherent superposition of their two hyperfine ground states by interaction with a microwave pulse. We demonstrate that the dephasing, measured as the Ramsey fringe contrast, can be reversed by stimulating a coherence echo with a $`\pi `$-pulse between the two $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$ pulses, in analogy to the photon echo. We also demonstrate that the failure of the echo for certain trap parameters is due to dynamics in the trap, and thereby that ”echo spectroscopy” can be used to study the quantum dynamics in the trap even when more than 106 states are thermally populated, and to study the crossover from quantum (where dynamical decoherence is supressed) to classical dynamics.

\]

The process of decoherence/dephasing is crucial to our understanding of the connection between quantum mechanics and classical physics, since it is the mechanism by which a pure quantum state evolves into a mixture of states when the system is coupled to the environment. In the field of quantum information long coherence times are of outmost importance, since decoherence or dephasing represent loss of information, or decrease in ”fidelity”. Long coherence times of atomic ensembles prepared in superposition states are of importance to high precision spectroscopy, where the measurement time is a limiting factor on the precision of the measurement. It is important to distinguish between reversible processes (dephasing) and irreversible processes (decoherence). Dephasing can be reversed, at least partially, by stimulating an effective ”time reversal”, as has been reported for spin echoes  and photon echoes , and more recently for a motional wave packet echo using ultra cold atoms in a one-dimensional optical lattice .

Microwave (MW) spectroscopy has been previously performed on ultra cold trapped atoms where long measurement times hold promise for high spectral resolution. However, dephasing due to inhomogeneous trap pertubations limits the applicability of trapped atoms for precision spectroscopy. Recently, a MW Ramsey technique was used to investigate the coherence of accelerator modes in an atom-optical realization of the $`\delta `$-kicked accelerator .

In this letter we investigate the dephasing of ultra cold $`{}_{}{}^{85}Rb`$ atoms trapped in an optical dipole trap and prepared in a coherent superposition of the two hyperfine ground states by interaction with a so-called $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$-MW-pulse. We demonstrate that the dephasing, measured as the Ramsey fringe contrast decay  and related with the Loschmidt echo decay, can be reversed (for the proper trap parameters), by stimulating a coherence echo. The later is obtained by adding a population-inverting ”$`\pi `$” pulse between the usual two ”$`\frac{\pi }{2}`$” pulses. We also show that the failure of the echo for other trap parameters is due to dynamics in the trap, and thereby that ”echo spectroscopy” can be used to gain important information about the time correlation function of the dynamics.

We study the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of $`{}_{}{}^{85}Rb`$ atoms trapped in a dipole trap. These two levels ($`|5S_{1/2},F=2,m_F=0`$, denoted $`|1`$, and $`|5S_{1/2},F=3,m_F=0`$, denoted $`|2`$) are separated by the energy splitting $`E_{HF}=\mathrm{}\omega _{HF}`$ with $`\omega _{HF}=2\pi \times 3.036`$ GHz. Since the dipole potential is inversely proportional to the trap laser detuning $`\delta `$  there is a slightly different potential for atoms in different hyperfine states . This difference in potential is the origin of the dephasing mechanisms we study here.

For spectroscopy of trapped atoms we must consider the entire Hamiltonian including both the internal and the (center of mass) motional degrees of freedom of the atom. The external potential differs for the two levels and the Hamiltonian of our trapped two level atom can be written as:

$`H=H_1|11\left|+H_2\right|22|=\left(\frac{p^2}{2m}+V_1\left(𝐱\right)\right)|11\left|+\left(\frac{p^2}{2m}+V_2\left(𝐱\right)+E_{HF}\right)\right|22|`$, where $`p`$ is the atomic center of mass momentum and $`V_1`$ \[$`V_2`$\] the external potential for an atom in state $`|1`$ \[$`|2`$\], much smaller than $`E_{HF}`$. The atoms are initially prepared in their internal ground state $`|1`$. Their total wavefunction can be written as $`\mathrm{\Psi }=|1`$ $`\psi `$, where $`\psi `$ represents the motional (external degree of freedom) part of their wavefunction. If a MW field close to resonance with $`\omega _{HF}`$ is applied, transitions between the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian corresponding to different internal states, can be driven. Since the size of our trap ($`50`$ $`\mu m`$) is much smaller than the MW wavelength ($``$10 cm), the momentum of the MW photon can be neglected (Lamb-Dicke regime ). The transition matrix elements are given by $`C_{nn^{}}=n^{}n\times M_{12}`$ where $`M_{12}`$ is the free space matrix element for the internal state transition, and $`n^{}n`$ is the overlap between the initial motional eigenstate of $`H_1`$ and an eigenstate of $`H_2`$. When a strong and short MW pulse is applied, the motional part of the initial wavefunction is simply projected into $`V_2\left(𝐱\right)`$. If $`V_1\left(𝐱\right)=V_2\left(𝐱\right)`$ then clearly $`n^{}n=\delta _{nn^{}}`$. For a small enough ”perturbation”, i.e. $`0<\delta V=V_2\left(𝐱\right)V_1\left(𝐱\right)`$ $`<`$ $`\epsilon `$, for some $`\epsilon `$ to be determined, we will still have $`nn^{}\delta _{nn^{}}`$. In the general case, a projected eigenstate of $`H_1`$ will not be an eigenstate of $`H_2`$, and therefore will evolve in the new potential, causing the overlap $`\left|n\left(t=0\right)n\left(t=\tau \right)\right|`$ to decay ($`|n\left(t=\tau \right)\mathrm{exp}\left(i\frac{H_2}{\mathrm{}}\tau \right)`$ $`|n`$).

In Ramsey spectroscopy, two ”$`\pi /2`$” pulses are applied, separated by a variable time $`\tau `$. If we start with some eigenstate of $`V_1`$ characterized by the quantum number $`n`$, then the probability to be in the internal state $`|2`$ after the $`\pi /2`$-$`\pi /2`$ pulse sequence can be shown to be: $`P_2=\frac{1}{2}\left(1+n\left|e^{i\left(\frac{H_2}{\mathrm{}}\omega _{MW}+\mathrm{\Delta }_n\right)\tau }\right|n\mathrm{cos}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_n\tau \right)\right)`$ where $`\omega _{MW}`$ is the MW-frequency, $`\tau `$ is the time between the pulses, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ is a generalized, state-dependent, detuning (it reduces to the detuning when only two levels are coupled by the MW-field) defined so $`n\left|\mathrm{exp}\left(i\left(\frac{H_2}{\mathrm{}}\omega _{MW}+\mathrm{\Delta }_n\right)\tau \right)\right|n`$ is real and positive. Scanning $`\omega _{MW}`$ for a fixed $`\tau `$ yields the usual Ramsey fringes with a contrast given by $`n\left|\mathrm{exp}\left(i\left(\frac{H_2}{\mathrm{}}\omega _{MW}+\mathrm{\Delta }_n\right)\tau \right)\right|n=\left|n\left(t=0\right)n\left(t=\tau \right)\right|`$. The fringe contrast can be viewed as the survival probability for a state $`|n`$ after a sudden change in potential from $`V_1\left(𝐱\right)`$ to $`V_2\left(𝐱\right)`$. Also, since $`n\left|\mathrm{exp}\left(i\left(\frac{H_2}{\mathrm{}}\omega _{MW}+\mathrm{\Delta }_n\right)\tau \right)\right|n=\left|n\left|\mathrm{exp}\left(i\left(\frac{H_1}{\mathrm{}}\right)\tau \right)\mathrm{exp}\left(i\left(\frac{H_2}{\mathrm{}}\right)\tau \right)\right|n\right|`$ it can be related to the Loshmidt echo, as described in Ref. , and serves as a measure of stability .

In our experiment we don’t have an initial single motional eigenstate, but a thermal ensemble of atoms incoherently populating more than $`10^6`$ eigenstates. The total population in $`|2`$ will be given by an average of $`P_2`$ over the initial thermal ensemble. Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ depends on the initial state, the fringe contrast of the ensemble-averaged $`P_2`$ decays rapidly even when $`\left|n\left(t=0\right)n\left(t=\tau \right)\right|1`$ for all populated states.

Our experiment is as follows: $`{}_{}{}^{85}Rb`$ atoms are loaded into a far off resonance optical trap (FORT), cooled to a temperature of 20 $`\mu K`$, and optically pumped into the F=2 hyperfine state from a magneto optical trap, followed by a molasses stage. The FORT consists of a 50 mW horizontal laser beam focused to a 1/e2 radius of 50 $`\mu m`$, and with a wavelength of $`\lambda `$=800 $`nm`$ ($`5`$ $`nm`$ from the $`D_1`$ line) yielding a trap depth of $`U_0/k_bT=1.5`$. The longitudinal oscillation time in the FORT ($`500`$ ms) is much larger than the experiment time (of the order of ten ms), and hence only the transverse motion is considered. The transverse oscillation time was measured using parametric excitation spectroscopy  to be 3.6 ms, in good agreement with the calculated value of 3 ms. For these trap parameters $`n^{}n\delta _{n,n^{}}`$, and therefore $`\left|n\left(t=0\right)n\left(t=\tau \right)\right|1`$ for all thermally populated states. The free space Rabi-frequency of the MW fields is 5 kHz, so the duration of the MW-pulses can be neglected. A bias magnetic field of 40 mG shifts all m$`{}_{F}{}^{}0`$ states out of resonance with the MW field, limiting the MW transitions to the two m$`{}_{F}{}^{}=0`$ states ($`|1`$ and $`|2`$). After the MW pulses the population of state $`|2`$ is detected by normalized selective fluorescence detection , and the Ramsey fringe contrast is normalized to the number of atoms in $`|2`$ with a short $`\pi `$-pulse.

As seen in Fig. 1, the Ramsey fringe contrast decays on a time scale of a few ms, due to the variation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ over the thermally populated states in good agreement

with a calculated decay time of 2.7 ms. The decay time is calculated as 1/(2$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{RMS}`$), where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{RMS}`$ is the RMS of the resonance frequency for $`|n|n^{}=n`$ transitions, taken over a thermal ensemble in a harmonic trap clipped at 1.5 $`k_BT`$. As explained above, the observed decay of the Ramsey fringe contrast is not a fingerprint of decoherence, but a consequence of dephasing. This dephasing can be reversed by adding a MW $`\pi `$-pulse between the two $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$ pulses, which inverts the populations of $`|1`$ and $`|2`$. $`P_2`$ then becomes:

$`P_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[1Re\left(n\left|e^{i\left(\frac{H_1}{\mathrm{}}\right)\tau }e^{i\left(\frac{H_2}{\mathrm{}}\right)\tau }e^{i\left(\frac{H_1}{\mathrm{}}\right)\tau }e^{i\left(\frac{H_2}{\mathrm{}}\right)\tau }\right|n\right)\right]`$ (1)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[1Re\left(e^{i\frac{E_n^1}{\mathrm{}}\tau }\phi _n\left(t=0\right)\phi _n\left(t=\tau \right)\right)\right]`$ (2)
where $`\left\{\phi _n\right\}`$ is a new basis defined by $`|\phi _n\left(t=0\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(i\frac{H_2}{\mathrm{}}\tau \right)`$ $`|n`$, and $`|\phi _n\left(t=\tau \right)\mathrm{exp}\left(i\frac{H_1}{\mathrm{}}\tau \right)`$ $`|\phi _n\left(t=0\right)`$. $`P_2`$ no longer depends on $`\omega _{MW}`$ and $`E_{HF}`$. The condition $`n^{}n\delta _{nn^{}}`$ for all initially populated vibrational states now ensures that $`P_20`$ for all $`\tau `$. In other words, after dephasing for a time $`\tau `$ a $`\pi `$-pulse stimulates a coherence echo at time 2$`\tau `$. The results of $`\pi /2`$-$`\pi `$-$`\pi /2`$ echo spectroscopy with the same trap parameters as before are also presented in Fig 1. A coherence echo ($`P_2<<1/2`$) is clearly seen long after the Ramsey fringe contrast has decayed. On a time scale of $``$100 ms the echo coherence decays, presumably due to longitudinal motion.

When $`n^{}n\delta _{nn^{}}`$ a good echo signal is no longer expected, since each vibrational state is coupled to several vibrational states by the MW fields, and therefore $`\left|\phi _n\left(t=0\right)\phi _n\left(t=\tau \right)\right|<1`$. We perform echo spectroscopy as a function of time between pulses for different wavelengths of the trap laser, thereby changing the perturbation strength $`\delta V`$ , while keeping the trap depth constant by adjusting the power of the trap beam. The results are shown in Fig. 2. For a large detuning ($`\lambda `$=805 nm, 10 nm from the $`D_1`$ line at 795 nm) a good echo ($`P_2<<1/2`$) is seen independent of the time between pulses, as also seen in Fig. 1. For an intermediate detuning ($`\lambda `$=798.25 nm) damped oscillations to a level smaller than 1/2 are seen, and for a small detuning ($`\lambda `$=796.25 nm) a complete decay of the echo coherence ($`P_2=1/2`$) followed by partial revivals at later times is seen.

The interpretation of the large detuning regime was given above. For intermediate detunings a small but significant coupling to other ($`n^{}n`$) vibrational states exists. Ignoring for a moment gravity, $`V_1\left(𝐱\right)`$ and $`V_2\left(𝐱\right)`$ are just the optical potentials and are related by $`V_2\left(𝐱\right)=\left(1+\epsilon \right)V_1\left(𝐱\right)`$ . When atoms are transferred from $`V_1\left(𝐱\right)`$ to $`V_2\left(𝐱\right)`$ by the MW field, a parametric excitation of the atomic wavepacked is induced, thereby exiting breathing modes. However, the change in the optical potential also changes the gravitational sag, and hence excites sloshing modes along the vertical axis. A wavefunction parametrically exited in an harmonic oscillator will revive after $`\tau =m\times 1/2\tau _{osc}`$ (yielding $`\left|\phi _n\left(t=0\right)\phi _n\left(t=m\times 1/2\tau _{osc}\right)\right|=1`$), and a sloshing mode will revive after $`\tau =m\times \tau _{osc}`$ . These revivals are seen in Fig. 2 as a partial revival in the echo signal at $`\tau =1.8`$ ms and a better one at $`\tau =3.6`$ ms, and their origin was verified in numerical calculations of the echo signal for typical single states in a 2D harmonic oscillator. When gravity was omitted in the calculation, the revival at $`\tau =1.8`$ ms was complete. The damping of the oscillation of the echo signal, i.e. the lack of a perfect revival at $`\tau =\tau _{osc}`$, is due to the anharmonicity of the Gaussian trap. We stress the sensitivity of our technique to map the quantum dynamics of a system, since we see the dynamics due to a pertubation (kick), that is about three orders of magnitude smaller than $`k_BT`$. We note the similarity of this technique, to techniques used to map molecular potentials in chemistry as e.g. COIN .

For sufficiently long time $`\tau `$ the wave packet oscillations of Fig. 2 damp due to complete dephasing of the dynamics. At such long time a simple expression for the echo signal can be given. In particular assuming random phases between all vibrational states yields the simple relation $`\left|\phi _n\left(t=0\right)\phi _n\left(t=\tau \right)\right|=\left|n^{}=nn\right|^4`$. Substituting this into Eq. 2 and averaging over the ensemble yield the expected long-time echo signal. We performed this calculation numerically for a 2D harmonic trap, in gravity, with our measured oscillation frequency and a thermal ensemble with a temperature of 20 $`\mu K`$ clipped at our trap depth of 1.5$`k_BT`$ . The results are shown in Fig. 3, together with the measured long-time echo signals as a function of potential difference. As seen, the calculation for the harmonic trap and the data points for the Gaussian trap show the same qualitative behavior, of improved long time echo when $`\delta V`$ becomes small.

Finally, non vanishing matrix elements for transitions to vibrational states with $`n^{}n`$ should show up as sidebands in the MW spectrum, if the pulse is long and weak enough so that the power broadening is smaller than the typical level spacing. This is shown in Fig. 4 for a trap laser wavelength of 805 nm. For a MW power corresponding to a free space $`\pi `$-pulse (Fig. 4a) the sidebands are not visible, indicating that the matrix elements for the sidebands are very small and thus enabling a successful echo in agreement with Fig. 2. Only for the much stronger 4$`\pi `$-pulse (Fig. 4b), the sidebands emerge. We also verified that the sidebands are stronger for smaller detunings, as expected from the analysis. This is interesting because it allows the quantization of the trap levels to be detected, even at very large temperatures compared to the 1D level spacing ($`k_BT>10^3\mathrm{}\omega _{osc}`$), where the motion of particles is usually considered to be classical.

In summary, we have demonstrated that a macroscopic coherence, lost as a consequence of dephasing of the different populated motional levels, can be efficiently revived by stimulating an echo if the trap detunings is large enough so $`\left|n^{}=nn\right|1`$. This suppression of dephasing due to pertubations induced by the trap yields a dramatic increase in the coherence time for trapped atoms, that may find important applications for precision spectroscopy and quantum information processing. We also demonstrated that echo spectroscopy can be used to experimentally map the quantum dynamics of trapped atoms, namely the ensemble average of $`\left|\phi _n\left(t=0\right)\phi _n\left(t=\tau \right)\right|`$, showing a crossover between quantum and classical regimes. In this way it can serve as an extremely sensitive experimental tool for investigating quantum chaos in atom-optics billiards  even when more than 106 states are thermally populated. Finally, we demonstrated that for sufficiently large detunings the sidebands can be resolved, thus making it possible to select mono energetic atoms by help of MW pulses, and thereby enabling energy-dependent repumping with MW pulses, for new cooling schemes.


format: text

text:
# Anomalous Behavior of the Zero Field Susceptibility of the Ising Model on the Cayley Tree

## I Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by CNPq and FACEPE (Brazilian Agencies).


text:
# Definition 1

KMS STATES ON THE SQUARE OF WHITE NOISE ALGEBRA

Luigi Accardi, Grigori Amosov, Uwe Franz

Abstract. It was shown in $`[AFS00]`$ that there are only three types of irreducible unitary representations $`\theta `$ of $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐥}_\mathrm{𝟐}`$. Using the Schurmann triple one can associate with each $`\theta `$ a number of representations of the square of white noise (SWN) algebra $`𝒜`$. However, in analogy with the Boson, Fermion and q-deformed case, we expect that some interesting non irreducible representations of $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐥}_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ may result in GNS representations of KMS states associated with some evolutions on $`𝒜`$. In the present paper determine the structure of the $``$–endomorphisms of the SWN algebra, induced by linear maps in the 1–particle Hilbert algebra, we introduce the SWN analogue of the quasifree evolutions and find the explicit form of the KMS states associated with some of them.

1. The square of white noise and its representations.

###### Definition 1

The square of white noise (SWN) algebra $`𝒜`$ over the Hilbert algebra $`𝒦=L^2(𝐑)L^{\mathrm{}}(𝐑)`$ (see \[ALV99, AFS00\]), is the unital $``$–Lie algebra with generators 1 (central element), $`b_\varphi ,b_\varphi ^+,n_\varphi ,\varphi 𝒦`$, which are linearly independent (in the sense that $`f_01+b_{f_1}+b_{f_2}+n_{f_3}=0`$ with $`f_0𝐂`$ and $`f_j𝒦`$ $`(j=1,2,3)`$ if and only if $`f_1=f_1=f_2=f_3=0`$) and relations

$$[b_\varphi ,b_\psi ^+]=\gamma <\varphi ,\psi >1+n_{\overline{\varphi }\psi },$$
$`\left(SWN_1\right)`$
$$[n_\varphi ,b_\psi ]=2b_{\overline{\varphi }\psi },$$
$`\left(SWN_2\right)`$
$$[n_\varphi ,b_\psi ^+]=2b_{\varphi \psi }^+,$$
$`\left(SWN_3\right)`$
$$\left(b_\varphi \right)^{}=b_\varphi ^+,\left(n_\varphi \right)^{}=n_{\overline{\varphi }},$$
$`\left(SWN_4\right)`$
$$[n_\varphi ,n_\psi ]=[b_\varphi ^+,b_\psi ^+]=[b_\varphi ,b_\psi ]=0$$
$`\left(SWN_5\right)`$
where $`\gamma `$ is a fixed strictly positive real parameter (coming from the renormalization), $`<,>`$ is a inner product in $`𝒦`$ and $`\varphi ,\psi 𝒦`$. Furthermore $`b^+`$ and $`n`$ are linear and $`b`$ is anti-linear in the functions from $`𝒦`$ and we assume that

$$X_\varphi =0\text{if and only if }\psi =0$$
$`\left(SWN_6\right)`$
###### Remark 1

The involution on $`𝒦`$ will be indifferently denoted $`ff^{}`$ or $`f\overline{f}`$. Following \[AFS00\] all the irreducible unitary representations of $`𝒜`$ can be obtained as follows. Consider the Lie algebra $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐥}_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ with generators $`\{B^+,B^{},M\}`$, relations

$$[B^{},B^+]=M,[M,B^\pm ]=\pm B^\pm ,$$

and involution $`(B^{})^{}=B^+,M^{}=M`$. Let $`\rho `$ be an irreducible representation of $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐥}_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and therefore of its universally enveloping unital algebra $`𝒰(\mathrm{𝐬𝐥}_\mathrm{𝟐})`$ in a Hilbert space $`_0`$ and $`\eta `$ be a 1–cocycle for $`\rho `$. Define $`L(uv)=<\eta (u^{}),\eta (v)>,u,v𝒰_0(\mathrm{𝐬𝐥}_\mathrm{𝟐})`$, where $`𝒰_0(\mathrm{𝐬𝐥}_\mathrm{𝟐})`$ is the algebra $`𝒰(\mathrm{𝐬𝐥}_\mathrm{𝟐})`$ without unit. Then $`(\rho ,\eta ,L)`$ is called a Schürmann triple and a representation $`\pi `$ of $`𝒜`$ in the Hilbert space $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(_0L^2(𝐑))`$ can be obtained from the relations

$$\pi \left(b_{\chi _{[s,t[}}\right)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{st}\left(\rho \left(B^{}\right)\right)+A_{st}^{}\left(\eta \left(B^{}\right)\right)+A_{st}\left(\eta \left(B^+\right)\right)+L\left(B^{}\right)\left(ts\right)Id,$$

$$\pi \left(b_{\chi _{[s,t[}}^+\right)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{st}\left(\rho \left(B^+\right)\right)+A_{st}^{}\left(\eta \left(B^+\right)\right)+A_{st}\left(\eta \left(B^{}\right)\right)+L\left(B^+\right)\left(ts\right)Id,$$

$$\pi \left(n_{\chi _{[s,t[}}\right)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{st}\left(\rho \left(M\right)\right)+A_{st}^{}\left(\eta \left(M\right)\right)+A_{st}\left(\eta \left(M\right)\right)+\left(L\left(M\right)\gamma \right)\left(ts\right)Id,$$
$`\left(Rep\right)`$
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{st}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_t\mathrm{\Lambda }_s,A_{st}^{}=A_t^{}A_s,A_{st}=A_tA_s`$ are the conservation, creation and annihilation processes on the symmetric Fock space $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(_0L^2(𝐑))`$ satisfying the relations (see \[Par92, Mey95\])

$$[A_t\left(\varphi \right),A_s^{}\left(\psi \right)]=\left(ts\right)<\varphi ,\psi >,$$

$$[A_t\left(\varphi \right),A_s\left(\psi \right)]=[A_t^{}\left(\varphi \right),A_s^{}\left(\psi \right)]=0,$$

$$[\mathrm{\Lambda }_t\left(X\right),\mathrm{\Lambda }_s\left(Y\right)]=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ts}\left([X,Y]\right),$$

$$[\mathrm{\Lambda }_t\left(X\right),A_s\left(\varphi \right)]=A_{ts}\left(X^{}\varphi \right),[\mathrm{\Lambda }_t\left(X\right),A_s^{}\left(\varphi \right)]=A_{ts}^{}\left(X\varphi \right),$$
$`\left(CCR\right)`$
$$\varphi ,\psi 𝒦,X,Y\left(𝒦\right),$$

$`\chi _I\left(I𝐑\right)`$ denotes the multiplication operator by the characteristic function of $`I`$ ($`=1`$ on $`I`$ and $`=0`$ outside $`I`$), $`\gamma `$ is the same as in $`(SWN_1)`$. Conversely, all the irreducible representations of $`𝒜`$ arise in this way. We shall say that the representation $`\rho `$ is associated with the representation $`\pi `$ anche the cocycle $`\eta `$. Hence to classify the representations of $`𝒜`$ one needs to investigate the representations of $`𝒰(\mathrm{𝐬𝐥}_\mathrm{𝟐})`$ and their cocycles.

The contents of the present paper is the following. In Section 2 we introduce the quasifree evolutions on $`𝒜`$. Then we obtain a classification of these evolutions and prove their spatiality. In Section 3 we consider the KMS states associated with a special subclass of the quasifree evolutions on $`𝒜`$.

2. Endomorphisms of the SWN algebra.

###### Definition 2

A Hilbert algebra is a \*–algebra $`𝒦`$, not necesarily with unit, endowed with a scalar product $`f,g𝐂`$ satisfying $`f,gh=g^{}f,h`$ $`(f,g,h𝒦)`$. A Hilbert algebra endomorphism (resp. automorphism) of $`𝒦`$ is a \*–endomorphism (resp. \*–automorphism) $`T`$ of the \*–algebra structure

$$T\left(\varphi \psi \right)=T\left(\varphi \right)T\left(\psi \right),\left(T\left(\varphi \right)\right)^{}=T\left(\overline{\varphi }\right)$$

which is also an isometry (resp. unitary operator), of the pre–Hilbert space structure in the sense that, $`\varphi `$, $`\psi 𝒦`$

$$T\left(\varphi \right),T\left(\psi \right)=\varphi ,\psi $$
$`\left(1\right)`$
Theorem 1. Let $`T^1,T^2,T^3`$ be linear operators on $`𝒦`$. Define a map $`\tau ^{}`$ acting on the generators $`b,b^+,n`$ by the formula

$$11;b_\varphi b_{T^1\varphi },b_\varphi ^+b_{T^2\varphi }^+,n_\varphi n_{T^3\varphi }.$$
$`\left(2\right)`$
The map $`\tau ^{}`$ can be extended to a $``$–endomorphism of $`𝒜`$ if and only if there exist a Hilbert algebra endomorphism $`T`$ of $`𝒦`$ and a real-valued function $`\alpha `$ on $`𝐑,`$ such that, for any $`\varphi 𝒦`$,

$$T^3\left(\varphi \right)=T\left(\varphi \right)$$
$`\left(3\right)`$
$$T^1\left(\varphi \right)=T^2\left(\varphi \right)=e^{i\alpha }T\left(\varphi \right)$$
$`\left(4\right)`$
The endomorphism $`\tau ^{}`$ is a an automorphism if and only if $`T`$ is an automorphism.

Proof. Because of the linear independence of the generators and of $`(SWN_6)`$, it follows from the relation $`(SWN_1)`$ that

$$\left(T^1\right)^{}T^2=Id,T^3\left(\overline{\varphi }\psi \right)=\overline{T^1\left(\varphi \right)}T^2\left(\psi \right),$$
$`\left(5\right)`$
where the first identity in condition (5) has to be interpreted in the sense of (1). From (SWN2) and (SWN6) it follows that

$$T^1\left(\overline{\varphi }\psi \right)=\overline{T^3\left(\varphi \right)}T^1\left(\psi \right),$$
$`\left(6\right)`$
from $`(SWN_3)`$ and (SWN6), that

$$T^2\left(\varphi \psi \right)=T^3\left(\varphi \right)T^2\left(\psi \right)$$
$`\left(7\right)`$
and from (SWN4) and (SWN6), that

$$T_0:=T^1=T^2,\overline{T^3\left(\varphi \right)}=T^3\left(\overline{\varphi }\right),$$
$`\left(8\right)`$
for any $`\varphi ,\psi 𝒦`$.

Therefore (5),(6,(7),(8) are respectively equivalent to:

$$T_0^{}T_0=id$$
$`\left(9\right)`$
$$T^3\left(\overline{\varphi }\right)=\overline{T^3\left(\varphi \right)}$$
$`\left(10\right)`$
$$T^3\left(\overline{\varphi }\psi \right)=\overline{T_0\left(\varphi \right)}T_0\left(\psi \right)$$
$`\left(11\right)`$
$$T_0\left(\varphi \psi \right)=T^3\left(\varphi \right)T_0\left(\psi \right)$$
$`\left(12\right)`$
From (11) with $`\varphi =\psi `$, we deduce that for any $`\psi 𝒦`$

$$T^3\left(\left|\psi \right|^2\right)=\left|T_0\left(\psi \right)\right|^2$$
$`\left(13\right)`$
Again from (11), with $`\psi `$ replaced by $`\psi \chi `$ we obtain

$$T^3\left(\overline{\varphi }\psi \chi \right)=\overline{T_0\left(\varphi \right)}T_0\left(\psi \chi \right)$$

and, from (12) this is equal to

$$\overline{T_0\left(\varphi \right)}T^3\left(\psi \right)T_0\left(\chi \right)$$

Choosing $`\varphi =\chi `$ and using (13) we deduce

$$T^3\left(\left|\varphi \right|^2\psi \right)=\left|T_0\left(\varphi \right)\right|^2T^3\left(\psi \right)=T^3\left(\left|\varphi \right|^2\right)T^3\left(\psi \right)$$

Since any positive element in $`𝒦`$ can be written in the form $`|\varphi |^2`$ for some $`\varphi 𝒦`$, this implies that, for any positive element $`\varphi `$ in $`𝒦`$

$$T^3\left(\varphi \psi \right)=T^3\left(\varphi \right)T^3\left(\psi \right)$$
$`\left(14\right)`$
Since any $`\varphi 𝒦`$ is linear combination of positive elements we conclude that (14) holds for any $`\varphi `$, $`\psi 𝒦`$.

Combining (13) and (14) we conclude that, for any $`\psi 𝒦`$

$$\left|T^3\left(\psi \right)\right|^2=\left|T_0\left(\psi \right)\right|^2$$

Thus for each $`\psi 𝒦`$ there exists a real valued measurable function $`\alpha _\psi `$ such that

$$T_0\left(\psi \right)=e^{i\alpha _\psi }T^3\left(\psi \right)$$
$`\left(15\right)`$
Finally (15) and (9) imply that, for any $`\varphi 𝒦`$

$$T^3\left(\varphi \right),T^3\left(\varphi \right)=T_0\left(\varphi \right),T_0\left(\varphi \right)=\varphi ,\varphi $$

and, by polarization, this implies that $`T^3`$ is isometric. Thus $`T^3`$ is a Hilbert algebra endomorphism. Let us denote

$$T:=T^3$$

If for some $`t>0`$, supp$`(\phi )[t,t]`$ then (15) implies that

$$e^{\alpha _\phi }T\left(\phi \right)=T_0\left(\phi \right)=T_0\left(\phi \chi _{[t,t]}\right)=T\left(\phi \right)T_0\left(\varphi _{[t,t]}\right)=$$

$$e^{i\alpha \chi _{[t,t]}T\left(\phi \right)T\left(\chi _{[t,t]}\right)}=e^{i\alpha \chi _{[t,z]}}T\left(\phi \right)$$

Thus, for any $`\phi 𝒦`$ with supp$`(\phi )[t,t]`$, one has, on supp$`(T(\phi ))`$:

$$\alpha _\phi =\alpha _{\chi _{[t,t]}};\text{a.e.}$$
$`\left(16\right)`$
In particular, if $`st`$

$$\alpha _{\chi _{[s,s]}}=\alpha _{\chi _{[t,]}};\text{a.e. on supp }T\left(\chi _{[s,s]}\right)$$
$`\left(17\right)`$
Since $`T`$ is an endomorphism of $`K`$, $`T(\chi _{[t,t]})`$ is a self–adjoint projection in $`𝒦`$, hence it has the form

$$T\left(\chi _{[t,t]}\right)=\chi _{I_t}$$

for some measurable subset $`I_t𝐑`$. By the isometry property one can suppose that $`tI_t`$ is increasing:

$$stI_sI_t;\text{a.e.}$$

Denote

$$\chi _I:=sup\chi _{I_t}=\chi _{_{t0}I_t}$$

since the union can be taken on any sequence increasing to $`+\mathrm{}`$, one can assume that $`I`$ is measurable up to a set of measure zero. Moreover for any sequence $`t_n+\mathrm{}`$ the function

$$\alpha :=lim\alpha _{\chi _{[t_n,t_n]}}$$

is well defined on $`I`$ and measurable up to a sub–set of measure zero of $`I`$. Because of (16) for any function $`\phi `$ with bounded support one has

$$T_0\left(\phi \right)=e^{i\alpha _\phi }T\left(\phi \right)=e^{i\alpha }T\left(\phi \right)$$

Since $`T_0`$ is isometric and the functions with bounded support are dense in $`𝒦`$, it follows that

$$T_0=e^{i\alpha }T$$
$`\left(18\right)`$
Conversely, if $`T:𝒦𝒦`$ is a Hilbert algebra endormorphism, $`\alpha :𝐑𝐑`$ a measurable function and $`T_0`$, $`T_1`$, $`T_2`$ are defined by (18), (8) respectively, then the map $`\tau ^{}`$, defined by (2) preserves the commutation relations of the SWN, hence is a $``$–Lie algebra endomorphism.

Finally it is clear that $`\tau ^{}`$ will be an automorphism (i.e. surjective endomorphism) if and only if $`T`$ is on to, i.e. unitary.

Example. A non surjective endomorphism of $`𝒜`$

Consider the following isometry on $`L^2(𝐑)`$:

$$Vf\left(x\right)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\text{if}x[0,1)\hfill & \\ f\left(x1\right)\text{if}x[1,+\mathrm{})\hfill & \\ 0\text{if}x(1,0]\hfill & \\ f\left(x+1\right)\text{if}x(\mathrm{},1]\hfill & \end{array}$$
$`\left(19\right)`$
One has:

$$Vf,Vg=\left[Vf\left(x\right)\right]^{}\left[Vg\left(x\right)\right]𝑑x$$

$$=_1^{\mathrm{}}\overline{f}\left(x1\right)g\left(x1\right)𝑑x+_{\mathrm{}}^1\overline{f}\left(x+1\right)g\left(x+1\right)𝑑x=$$

$$=_0^{\mathrm{}}\overline{f}\left(y\right)g\left(y\right)𝑑y+_{\mathrm{}}^0\overline{f}\left(y\right)g\left(y\right)𝑑y=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\overline{f}\left(y\right)g\left(y\right)𝑑y=f,g_{L^2}$$

Thus $`V`$ is isometric:

$$V^{}V=1$$

However

$$\text{Range }V=\{fL^2\left(𝐑\right):f\left(x\right)=0\text{ if }x[1,1]\}$$

which is a proper subspace of $`L^2(𝐑)`$.

###### Remark 2

Notice that $`V`$ maps $`L^2L^{\mathrm{}}(𝐑)=:𝒦`$ into itself and clearly induces a Hilbert algebra endomorphism of $`𝒦`$. Let us denote it $`T^3`$. Notice however that, if $`\chi `$ is any characteristic function of a bounded subset in $`𝐑`$, then

$$T^3\left(\chi \right)\chi _{(1,1)^c}$$

Therefore

$$\overline{\chi }=sup\{T^{\left(3\right)}\chi :\chi \text{ projectors on bounded subsets of }𝐑=\chi _{(1,1)^c}<1$$

Definition 3. The endomorphisms of $`𝒜`$, introduced in Theorem 1 are called quasifree. If $`\tau ^{}`$ is such an endomorphism and $`(T,\alpha )`$ is the pair associated to it via Theorem 1, we shall say that $`\tau ^{}`$ is obtained by the lifting (or second quantization) of the pair $`(T,\alpha )`$.

The theorem implies that every quasifree endomorphism $`\tau ^{}`$ of $`𝒜`$ can be represented as a composition $`\tau ^{}=\tau ^1\tau ^2`$ such that

$`\left(𝐀\right)`$ $`\tau ^1`$ is obtained by the lifting of the pair $`(T,0)`$;

$`\left(𝐁\right)`$ $`\tau ^2`$ is obtained by the lifting of the pair $`(1,\alpha )`$.

A quasifree endomorphism will be called of type $`(A)`$, resp. $`(B)`$ if it belongs to one of these classes. Notice that, if we consider a one-parameter group of automorphisms with parameter set $`𝐑`$, then the associated family of operators $`(T_t)_{t𝐑}`$ must be a group of endomorphisms in case of type (A) and the function $`\alpha _t(x)`$ must be of the form $`\alpha _t(x)=\alpha (x)t,t𝐑`$, in case of type (B). We are interested to study the spatiality of these evolutions relatively to the representations of $`𝒜`$.

Proposition 1. Let $`\pi `$ be a representation of $`𝒜`$ in the Hilbert space $`=\mathrm{\Gamma }(_0L^2(𝐑))`$ generated by the Schurmann triple $`(\rho ,\eta ,L)`$. Given a type $`(𝐀)`$ quasifree automorphism $`\tau ^{}`$ of the SWN algebra $`𝒜`$, there is an automorphism $`\tau `$ of the algebra $`()`$ such that $`\tau (\pi (x))=\pi (\tau ^{}(x)),x𝒜`$.

Proof. Let the automorphism $`\tau ^{}=\tau _T^{}`$ be obtained by the lifting of the pair $`(T,0)`$. To prove the proposition we must look for a unitary operator $`𝒰`$ in $``$ implementing $`\tau ^{}`$. Every automorphism of $`𝒦`$ can be continued to an automorphism of the von Neumann algebra $`L^{\mathrm{}}\left(𝐑\right)`$ that is unitary implementable. Therefore there is a unitary operator $`U`$ acting in $`L^2\left(𝐑\right)`$ such that $`T\left(x\right)=UxU^{},x𝒦`$. The formula $`𝒰e\left(f\varphi \right)=e\left(fU\varphi \right),f_0,\varphi \mathrm{\Gamma }\left(L^2\left(𝐑\right)\right)`$, defines a unitary operator $`𝒰=\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1U\right)`$ on the exponential vectors $`e\left(f\varphi \right)`$ in $``$ and therefore on the whole of $``$. The property $`\pi \left(\tau ^{}\left(x\right)\right)=𝒰\pi \left(x\right)𝒰^{},x𝒜,`$ holds. One can define $`\tau \left(x\right)=\tau _T\left(x\right)=𝒰x𝒰^{},x\left(\right)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Given a type $`(𝐁)`$ quasifree automorphism $`\tau ^{}`$ of the SWN algebra $`𝒜`$ obtained by the lifting of pair $`(1,\alpha )`$ and a representation $`\pi `$ of $`𝒜`$ generated by the Schurmann triple $`(\rho ,\eta ,L)`$, it is natural to conjecture that the associated automorphism $`\tau ()`$, of the algebra $`()`$, $`(\tau (\pi (x))=\pi (\tau ^{}(x)),x𝒜)`$, has the form $`\tau ()=e^{iH}()e^{iH}`$ with

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\alpha \left(t\right)𝑑n_t,$$

$$dn_t=d\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\rho \left(M\right)\right)+dA^{}\left(\eta \left(M\right)\right)+dA\left(\eta \left(M\right)\right)+\left(L\left(M\right)\gamma \right)dt$$
$`\left(20\right)`$
This conjecture can be proved by an approximation argument which makes use of the following.

Proposition 2. In the above notations let $`\alpha `$ be a locally constant function vanishing outside a bounded interval and let $`(\tau _\epsilon )`$ be the 1–parameter automorphism group of $`𝒜`$ associated to the pairs $`(1,\epsilon \alpha ),\epsilon 𝐑`$. Then for any $`x𝒜`$

$$\tau _\epsilon \left(\pi \left(x\right)\right)=e^{i\epsilon H}\pi \left(x\right)e^{i\epsilon H}$$
$`\left(21\right)`$
Proof. For each $`x𝒜`$ denote

$$x\left(\epsilon \right)=\tau _\epsilon \left(x\right)$$

Choosing $`x=b_\psi ^+`$ $`\left(\psi 𝒦\right)`$ one has

$$_\epsilon \pi \left(b_\psi ^+\left(\epsilon \right)\right)=_\epsilon \pi \left(b_{e^{i\epsilon \alpha }\psi }^+\right)=\pi \left(b_{i\alpha e^{i\epsilon \alpha }\psi }^+\right)=i\alpha \pi \left(b_\psi ^+\left(\epsilon \right)\right)$$

where in the last identity we have used the fact that, because of the independent increment property, it is sufficient to consider the case $`\alpha =`$ constant on the support of $`\psi `$.

In our assumptions the operator $`H=H(\alpha )`$ is self–adjoint and

$$C_\psi ^+\left(\epsilon \right):=e^{i\epsilon H_\pi }\left(b_\psi ^+\right)e^{i\epsilon H}$$

satisfies the equation

$$_\epsilon C_\psi ^+\left(\epsilon \right)=ie^{i\epsilon H}[H,\pi \left(b_\psi ^+\right)]e^{i\epsilon H}=ie^{i\epsilon H}\pi \left([n_{\alpha /2},b_\psi ^+]\right)e^{i\epsilon H}$$

It follows that $`\tau _\epsilon (b_\psi ^+))`$ and $`C_\psi ^+(\epsilon )`$ satisfy the same ordinary differential equation with the same initial condition. Since $`\alpha `$ is constant, in both cases the unique solution is

$$\tau _\epsilon \left(\pi \left(b_\psi ^+\right)\right)=C_\psi ^+\left(\epsilon \right)=\pi \left(b_{e^{i\epsilon \alpha }\psi }^+\right)$$

Similarly one verifies that

$$\tau _\epsilon \left(\pi \left(b_\psi \right)\right)=\pi \left(b_{e^{i\epsilon \alpha }\psi }\right);\tau _\epsilon \left(\pi \left(n_\psi \right)\right)=\pi \left(n_\psi \right)$$

and from this (21) follows.

3. KMS states associated with quasifree evolutions on the SWN algebra

Let $`\tau _\lambda ^{}=(\tau _t^{})_{t𝐑}`$ be a group of type (B) quasifree automorphisms on $`𝒜`$ defined by

$$\tau _t^{}\left(b_\varphi \right)=\lambda ^{it}b_\varphi ,\tau _t^{}\left(b_\varphi ^+\right)=\lambda ^{it}b_\varphi ^+,$$

$$\tau _t^{}\left(n_\varphi \right)=n_\varphi ,t𝐑,0<\lambda <1.$$

Pick up the representations $`\rho ^\pm `$ of $`𝒰(\mathrm{𝐬𝐥}_\mathrm{𝟐})`$ in $`l^2`$ introduced in $`[AFS00]`$ as

$$\rho ^+\left(B^+\right)e_n=\rho ^{}\left(B^{}\right)e_n=\sqrt{\left(n+1\right)\left(n+2\right)}e_{n+1},$$

$$\rho ^+\left(B^{}\right)e_n=\rho ^{}\left(B^+\right)e_n=\sqrt{n\left(n+1\right)}e_{n1}$$

$$\rho ^\pm \left(M\right)e_n=\pm \left(2n+2\right)e_n,$$

where $`\{e_0,e_1,\mathrm{},e_n,\mathrm{}\}`$ is an orthonormal basis of $`l^2`$. Then define a pair of states $`\varphi ^\pm =\varphi _\lambda ^\pm `$ on $`𝒰(\mathrm{𝐬𝐥}_\mathrm{𝟐})`$ by the formula

$$\varphi _\lambda ^\pm ()=\left(1\lambda \right)\underset{n=0}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda ^n(e_n,\rho ^\pm ()e_n).$$

In the representation $`\pi =\rho ^+\rho ^{}`$ of $`𝒰(\mathrm{𝐬𝐥}_\mathrm{𝟐})𝒰(\mathrm{𝐬𝐥}_\mathrm{𝟐})`$ in the Hilbert space $`_\varphi =l^2l^2`$ we get

$$\varphi _\lambda ^+\left(x\right)=(\psi _\lambda ,\pi \left(x\mathrm{𝟏}\right)\psi _\lambda ),$$

$$\varphi _\lambda ^{}\left(x\right)=(\psi _\lambda ,\pi \left(\mathrm{𝟏}x\right)\psi _\lambda ),\varphi _\lambda \left(xy\right)=(\psi _\lambda ,\pi \left(xy\right)\psi _\lambda )$$

$$x,y𝒰\left(\mathrm{𝐬𝐥}_\mathrm{𝟐}\right),$$

where $`\psi _\lambda =\sqrt{1\lambda }\underset{n=0}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda ^{\frac{n}{2}}e_ne_n_\varphi `$. So one can consider $`\pi `$ as the GNS representation associated with the state $`\varphi _\lambda `$. Put $`B_1^+=\pi (B^+\mathrm{𝟏}),B_1^{}=\pi (B^{}\mathrm{𝟏}),M_1=\pi (M\mathrm{𝟏})`$ and $`B_2^{}=\pi (\mathrm{𝟏}B^{}),B_2^+=\pi (\mathrm{𝟏}B^+),M_2=\pi (\mathrm{𝟏}M)`$. Every triple $`(B_i^+,B_i^{},M_i)`$ satisfies the relations of $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐥}_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ by the definition.

Proposition 3. The pairwise commuting operators $`(B_1^+,B_1^{},M_1)`$ and $`(B_2^+,B_2^{},M_2)`$ satisfy the following relations

$$B_1^{}\psi _\lambda =\sqrt{\lambda }B_2^{}\psi _\lambda ,B_1^+\psi _\lambda =\frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda }}B_2^+\psi _\lambda ,$$

$$M_1\psi _\lambda =M_2\psi _\lambda .$$

Proof. The identities

$$B_1^+e_ne_n=\pi \left(B^+\mathrm{𝟏}\right)e_ne_n=$$

$$=\rho ^+\left(B^+\right)e_ne_n=\sqrt{\left(n+1\right)\left(n+2\right)}e_{n+1}e_n=$$

$$=e_{n+1}\rho ^{}\left(B^+\right)e_{n+1}=\pi \left(\mathrm{𝟏}B^+\right)e_{n+1}e_{n+1}=B_2^+e_{n+1}e_{n+1}$$

imply

$$B_1^+\psi _\lambda =\sqrt{1\lambda }\underset{n=0}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda ^{\frac{n}{2}}B_1^+e_ne_n=\sqrt{1\lambda }\underset{n=1}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda ^{\frac{n1}{2}}B_2^+e_ne_n=$$

$$=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda }}B_2^+\psi _\lambda ,$$

where we used the formula $`B_2^+e_0e_0=e_0\rho ^{}\left(B^+\right)e_0=0`$. The remaining equalities can be proved in the same way. $`\mathrm{}`$

Consider the Schurmann triple $`(\pi ,\eta _\lambda ,\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_\lambda )`$ consisting of the representation $`\pi `$ of $`𝒰(\mathrm{𝐬𝐥}_\mathrm{𝟐})𝒰(\mathrm{𝐬𝐥}_\mathrm{𝟐})`$, the trivial cocycle $`\eta _\lambda (x)=\pi (x)\psi _\lambda `$ and the conditionally positive functional $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_\lambda (x)=(\psi ,(\pi (x)\epsilon (x))\psi ),x𝒰(\mathrm{𝐬𝐥}_\mathrm{𝟐})𝒰(\mathrm{𝐬𝐥}_\mathrm{𝟐})`$, where $`\epsilon `$ is a counit. The restrictions of $`(\pi ,\eta _\lambda ,\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_\lambda )`$ give us two Schurmann triples $`(\pi _\pm ,\eta _{\lambda ,\pm },\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{\lambda ,\pm })`$ consisting of representations $`\pi _\pm `$ of $`𝒰(\mathrm{𝐬𝐥}_\mathrm{𝟐})`$ by $`(B_1^+,B_1^{},M_1)`$ and $`(B_2^+,B_2^{},M_2)`$ correspondingly such that $`\pi _+(x)=\pi (x\mathrm{𝟏}),\pi _{}(x)=\pi (\mathrm{𝟏}x)`$, $`\eta _{\lambda ,\pm }(x)=\pi _\pm (x)\psi _\lambda `$, $`x𝒰(\mathrm{𝐬𝐥}_\mathrm{𝟐})`$. Then we can define the Levy process $`j_{st}`$ over $`𝒰(\mathrm{𝐬𝐥}_\mathrm{𝟐})𝒰(\mathrm{𝐬𝐥}_\mathrm{𝟐})`$ associated with $`(\pi ,\eta _\lambda ,\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_\lambda )`$ and two Levy processes $`j_{st}^\pm `$ over $`𝒰(\mathrm{𝐬𝐥}_\mathrm{𝟐})`$ associated with the Schurmann triples $`(\pi _+,\eta _{\lambda ,+},\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{\lambda ,+})`$ and $`(\pi _{},\eta _{\lambda ,},\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{\lambda ,})`$ correspondingly such that

$$j_{st}\left(x\right)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{st}\left(\pi \left(x\right)\right)+A_{st}^{}\left(\eta _\lambda \left(x\right)\right)+A_{st}\left(\eta _\lambda \left(x^{}\right)\right)+\left(ts\right)\varphi _\lambda \left(x\right)Id,$$

$$x𝒰\left(\mathrm{𝐬𝐥}_\mathrm{𝟐}\right)𝒰\left(\mathrm{𝐬𝐥}_\mathrm{𝟐}\right),$$

$$j_{st}^+\left(B^\pm \right)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{st}\left(B_1^\pm \right)+A_{st}^{}\left(B_1^\pm \psi _\lambda \right)+A_{st}\left(B_1^{}\psi _\lambda \right)+\left(ts\right)(\psi _\lambda ,B_1^\pm \psi _\lambda )Id,$$

$$j_{st}^+\left(M\right)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{st}\left(M_1\right)+A_{st}^{}\left(M_1\psi _\lambda \right)+A_{st}\left(M_1\psi _\lambda \right)+\left(ts\right)(\psi _\lambda ,M_1\psi _\lambda )Id,$$

$$j_{st}^{}\left(B^\pm \right)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{st}\left(B_2^\pm \right)+A_{st}^{}\left(B_2^\pm \psi _\lambda \right)+A_{st}\left(B_2^{}\psi _\lambda \right)+\left(ts\right)(\psi _\lambda ,B_2^\pm \psi _\lambda )Id,$$

$$j_{st}^{}\left(M\right)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{st}\left(M_2\right)+A_{st}^{}\left(M_2\psi _\lambda \right)+A_{st}\left(M_2\psi _\lambda \right)+\left(ts\right)(\psi _\lambda ,M_2\psi _\lambda )Id.$$

One can associate with the Levy processes given above two representations $`\theta _\pm =\theta _\pm ^{(\lambda )}`$ of the SWN algebra $`𝒜`$ and a representation $`\theta `$ of the tensor product of two SWN algebras $`𝒜𝒜`$ in the same Fock space $`=\mathrm{\Gamma }(_\varphi L^2)`$ such that

$$\theta _\pm \left(b_{[s,t[}\right)=j_{st}^\pm \left(B^{}\right),\theta _\pm \left(b_{[s,t[}^+\right)=j_{st}^\pm \left(B^+\right),$$

$$\theta _\pm \left(n_{[s,t[}\right)=j_{st}^\pm \left(M\right)\gamma \left(ts\right)Id,$$

$$\theta \left(xy\right)=\theta _+\left(x\right)\theta _{}\left(y\right),x,y𝒜.$$

Proposition 4. The maps $`\theta _\pm `$ define two representations of the SWN algebra $`𝒜`$ in the Hilbert space $`=\mathrm{\Gamma }(_\varphi L^2)`$ such that $`\theta _+(x)`$ and $`\theta _{}(y)`$ are commuting for all $`x,y𝒜`$.

Proof.

Notice that $`\theta _+(x)`$ and $`\theta _{}(y)`$ commute if $`x,y𝒜`$ because $`B_1^{},B_1^+,M_1`$ and $`B_2^{},B_2^+,M_2`$ commute. Hence we need to prove only that $`\theta _+`$ and $`\theta _{}`$ are representations. Using the CCR relations (see the Introduction) we get

$$[\theta _+\left(b_{[s,t[}\right),\theta _+\left(b_{[s,t[}^+\right)]=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{st}\left(M_1\right)+A_{st}^{}\left(M_1\psi _\lambda \right)+A_{st}\left(M_1\psi _\lambda \right)+(\psi _\lambda ,M_1\psi _\lambda )=$$

$$\theta _+\left(n_{\left[st\right[}\right)+\gamma \left(ts\right)Id,$$

$$[\theta _+\left(n_{[s,t[}\right),\theta _+\left(b_{[s,t[}^\pm \right)]=\pm \mathrm{\Lambda }_{st}\left(B_1^\pm \right)\pm A_{st}^{}\left(B_1^\pm \psi _\lambda \right)A_{st}\left(B_1^{}\psi _\lambda \right)\pm (\psi _\lambda ,B_1^\pm \psi _\lambda )=$$

$$\theta _+\left(b_{[s,t[}^\pm \right).$$

The remaining formulae can be proved analogously. $`\mathrm{}`$

Define a linear map $`\omega _\lambda :𝒜𝐂`$, by the formula

$$\omega _\lambda \left(x\right)=(\mathrm{\Omega },\theta _+\left(x\right)\mathrm{\Omega }).$$

Theorem 2. $`\omega _\lambda `$ is a KMS state associated with the evolution $`\tau ^{}`$, i.e.

$$\omega _\lambda \left(xy\right)=\omega _\lambda \left(x\tau _i^{}\left(y\right)\right)$$

for all elements $`x,y𝒜`$ which are analytic with respect to $`\tau ^{}`$.

Proof.

Notice that $`\tau _i^{}(b_{\chi _{[s,t[}}^\pm )=\lambda ^{\pm 1}b_{\chi _{[s,t[}}^\pm `$. Hence it is sufficient to prove only that

$$\omega _\lambda \left(b_{\chi _{[s,t[}}^\pm y\right)=\lambda ^{\pm 1}\omega \left(yb_{\chi _{[s,t[}}^\pm \right),y𝒜.$$

Given $`x=\theta _+(y)\theta _+(𝒜)`$ one can obtain

$$\omega _\lambda \left(b_{\chi _{[s,t[}}^+y\right)=(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{st}\left(B_1^{}\right)\mathrm{\Omega },x\mathrm{\Omega })+$$

$$(A_{st}^{}\left(B_1^{}\psi _\lambda \right)\mathrm{\Omega },x\mathrm{\Omega })+(A_{st}\left(B_1^+\psi _\lambda \right)\mathrm{\Omega },x\mathrm{\Omega })+\left(ts\right)(\psi _\lambda ,B_1^+\psi _\lambda )\omega _\lambda \left(x\right)𝒮.$$

Notice that

$$(\psi _\lambda ,B_2^+\psi _\lambda )=(\psi _\lambda ,\mathrm{𝟏}\rho ^{}\left(B^+\right)\psi _\lambda )=$$

$$\left(1\lambda \right)(\underset{n=0}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda ^{\frac{n}{2}}e_ne_n,\underset{n=0}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda ^{\frac{n}{2}}e_n\sqrt{n\left(n+1\right)}e_{n1})=0.$$

Hence

$$0=(\psi _\lambda ,B_2^+\psi _\lambda )=\overline{(\psi _\lambda ,B_2^+\psi _\lambda )}=(B_2^+\psi _\lambda ,\psi _\lambda )=(\psi _\lambda ,B_2^{}\psi _\lambda ).$$

Using the last relation, Proposition 4 and the equality $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{st}(x)\mathrm{\Omega }=A_{st}(\xi )\mathrm{\Omega }=0,x𝒰(\mathrm{𝐬𝐥}_\mathrm{𝟐}),\xi `$, we get the following expression,

$$𝒮=\sqrt{\lambda }\left((A_{st}^{}\left(B_2^{}\psi _\lambda \right)\mathrm{\Omega },x\mathrm{\Omega })+\left(ts\right)(\psi _\lambda ,B_2^+\psi _\lambda )\omega _\lambda \left(x\right)\right)=$$

$$=\sqrt{\lambda }((\mathrm{\Lambda }_{st}\left(B_2^{}\right)\mathrm{\Omega },x\mathrm{\Omega })+$$

$$(A_{st}^{}\left(B_2^{}\psi \right)\mathrm{\Omega },x\mathrm{\Omega })+(A_{st}\left(B_2^+\psi \right)\mathrm{\Omega },x\mathrm{\Omega })+(ts)(\psi ,B_2^{}\psi )\omega _\lambda \left(x\right))=$$

$$\sqrt{\lambda }(\theta _{}\left(b_{\chi _{\left[st\right[}}\right)\mathrm{\Omega },x\mathrm{\Omega })=\sqrt{\lambda }(\mathrm{\Omega },x\theta _{}\left(b_{\chi _{\left[st\right[}}^+\right)\mathrm{\Omega })=\lambda \omega _\lambda \left(yb_{\chi _{[s,t[}}^+\right)$$

The equality

$$\omega _\lambda \left(b_{\chi _{[s,t[}}x\right)=\frac{1}{\lambda }\omega _\lambda \left(xb_{\chi _{[s,t[}}\right),x𝒜,$$

can be checked in the same way. $`\mathrm{}`$

In every representation $`\theta `$ of the algebra $`𝒜`$ there are sufficiently many hermitian operators $`x\theta (𝒜)`$. One can apply the functions $`fL^{\mathrm{}}`$ to these operators and consider the von Neumann algebra $`=\theta (𝒜)^{\prime \prime }()`$ generated by the all $`f(x)()`$. The von Neumann algebra $``$ generated by the irreducible representation $`\theta `$ is of type $`\mathrm{I}`$. Let $`=_\pm `$ be the von Neumann algebras generated by the representations constructed from the KMS state associated with the evolution $`\tau _\lambda ^{}`$ on $`𝒜`$. These representations are not irreducible. In particular, the algebras $`M_+`$ and $`M_{}`$ commute. One might expect $``$ to be of type $`III_\lambda ,0<\lambda <1`$ (see \[C73\]).

Acknowledgments

Grigori Amosov is grateful to Professor Luigi Accardi for kind hospitality during his visit at the Centro Vito Volterra of Universita di Roma Tor Vergata.

References

\[ALV99\] L. Accardi, Y.G. Lu, I.V. Volovich, White noise approach to classical and quantum stochastic calculi, Centro Vito Volterra, Universita di Roma “Tor Vergata”, Preprint 375, 1999.

\[AFS00\] L. Accardi, U. Franz, M. Skeide, Renormalixzed squares of white noise and other non-gaussian noises as Levy processes on real Lie algebras, Centro Vito Volterra, Universita di Roma “Tor Vergata”, Preprint 423, 2000, Commun. Math. Phys. 228 (2002) 123-150.

\[Par92\] K.R. Parthasarathy, An Introduction to Quantum Stochastic Calculus, Birkhauser, 1992.

\[Mey95\] P.-A. Meyer, Quantum Probability for Probabilitists, Lecture Notes in Math., Vol. 1538, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2nd edition, 1995.

\[C73\] A. Connes, Une classification des facteurs de type III, Ann. Sci. Ecole Norm. Sup. 6 (1973) 133-252.