format: text

text:
# Photometric Properties of the Arp 220 Super Star Clusters

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Ultraluminous infrared galaxies (ULIGs) are the most luminous objects in the local universe (their bolometric luminosities $`>10^{12}\mathrm{L}_{}`$). The ULIGs are undergoing major dissipative collapses, which are probably triggered by mergers (Clements et al. 1996; Murphy et al. 1996).

Whether the ULIGs are powered by starbursts or active galactic nuclei (AGN) has remained unknown since their discovery because of huge amounts of internal extinction along our lines of sight to their centres (for a review see Sanders & Mirabel 1996). However, recent mid-infrared spectroscopic work (Genzel et al. 1998) suggests that the major energy sources of most local ULIGs are nuclear starbursts. This provides an important motivation for studying the star formation in the centres of ULIGs in detail.

The nearest and best-studied ULIG is the star-forming (Genzel et al. 1998) galaxy Arp 220 (far-infrared luminosity $`1.5\times 10^{12}\mathrm{L}_{}`$) at a distance of 74 Mpc (assuming $`H_0`$ = 75 km s-1 Mpc-1 and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=1`$; de Vaucouleurs et al. 1991). Detailed imaging of the centre of Arp 220 with the Hubble Space Telescope has revealed a number of super star clusters (SSCs; Shaya et al. 1994, Scoville et al. 1998). These nuclear SSCs appear to be a generic feature of luminous merging galaxies (Lutz 1991; Ashman & Zepf 1992; Holtzman et al. 1992; Zepf & Ashman 1993; Surace et al. 1998; Surace & Sanders 1999). Surace et al. (1998) and Surace & Sanders (1999) evaluated the luminosities of SSCs in warm ULIGs and concluded that the combined contributions of the all the individual detected circumnuclear SSCs to the bolometric luminosities are small. They also showed that for some warm ULIGs the de-reddened luminosities of putative nuclei are not able to account for the bolometric luminosity and that a large fraction of the bolometric luminosity must arise from sources undetected at both optical and near-infrared wavelengths.

In this paper, we compare the observed optical and near-infrared spectral energy distributions (SEDs) of the Arp 220 SSCs with the Starburst99 model SEDs of Leitherer et al. (1999) and estimate their ages, masses, and luminosities, along with the internal extinction along our lines of sight to them. This is the first attempt to analyse by SED fitting methods the properties of SSCs in the centre of Arp 220, which is colder (Sanders et al. 1988) than the ULIGs studied by Surace et al. (1998). These results will let us evaluate how much of the very substantial amount of star formation currently happening in Arp 220 is in the SSCs, at least in the ones which are not completely invisible at optical and near-infrared wavelengths due to internal extinction. Recently, Soifer et al. (1999) presented the images of Arp 220 from 3.45 to 24.5 $`\mu `$m. Since Genzel et al. (1998) derived the value of $`A_V=45`$ mag based on the mid-infrared hydrogen recombination lines (Br$`\beta `$ $`\lambda `$ 2.17 $`\mu `$m, Br$`\alpha `$ $`\lambda `$ 4.05$`\mu `$m and Pf$`\alpha `$ $`\lambda `$ 7.46 $`\mu `$m), the mid-infrared sources observed by Soifer et al. (1999) must be highly obscured objects. This suggests that what Surace et al. (1998) found to be true in the warm ULIGs, specifically that the contribution of the observed clusters to the bolometric luminosity is small, is also true in Arp 220. We now investigate this in detail by studying the energy outputs of the SSCs themselves.

## 2 METHODS

### 2.1 Identifications of SSCs

The Hubble Space Telescope images of the core of Arp 220 show eleven SSCs at optical ($`V`$-, $`R`$-, and $`I`$-band) wavelengths (Shaya et al. 1994) and twelve SSCs at near-infrared ($`J`$-, $`H`$-, and $`K`$-band) wavelengths (Scoville et al. 1998). In this paper, we call the F110W filter (1.1 $`\mu `$m) as $`J`$ filter, though the standard $`J`$ filter is at 1.25$`\mu `$m. We combine these datasets in order to obtain a set of SSCs that are detected at all wavelengths. This allows us to sample the SEDs over as wide a range in wavelength as possible.

Three SSCs are located in the outer regions of the core – we expect dust extinction to be smallest here, so that these SSCs should be seen at all wavelengths. Given the published coordinates, there is a slight offset between the near-infrared and optical positions of these SSCs (see the left panel of Figure 1). However, if we rotate the near-infrared images by $`4^{}`$ around the nuclear SSC associated with the western nucleus, the positions of the star clusters in the two images are almost coincident (see the right panel of Figure 1). Given the probable low extinction along these lines of sight, we regard this astrometrical solution as likely to be the correct one. In addition, given this astrometry, we then find that three nuclear SSCs (hereafter N1, N2, and N3) are coincident in the optical and near-infrared images, in addition to the three circumnuclear ones (hereafter C1, C2, and C3).

### 2.2 Spectral energy distributions of the SSCs

In Figure 2, we show the observed SEDs of the six SSCs. We use the photometric data published by Shaya et al. (1994; $`VRI`$ bands) and by Scoville et al. (1998; $`JHK`$ bands) for SSC N2 – N3 and C1 – C3. In the case of SSC N1, we have used $`HST`$ archival data to measure the optical fluxes using the same 0.92 arcsec $`\times `$ 0.58 arcsec aperture used by Scoville et al. (1998) for the near-infrared measurements (Shaya et al. used a smaller aperture in their analysis). The magnitudes of SSC N1 are 21.96 mag and 19.36 for $`R`$-band (F702W) and $`I`$-band (F785LP) respectively. This SSC was not detected in the $`V`$-band (F555W).

All three nuclear SSCs show a peak at 1.6 $`\mu `$m, whereas all three circumnuclear SSCs have SEDs that rise towards bluer wavelengths. This is a very important difference and is immediately suggestive of far more dust extinction along the lines of sight to the nuclear SSCs than along the lines of sight to the circumnuclear ones.

We now compare the SEDs with the Starburst99 spectral synthesis models of Leitherer et al. (1999). One of the advantages of the Starburst99 is that it tell us the evolution of the strength of CO index which is useful to constrain the range of ages. When fitting model SEDs to observed ones in the presence of internal extinction, there are several parameters that we need to consider: 1) the mode of star formation. For example, the star formation may occur continuously (the constant star formation, or CSF model), may occur in a short, almost instantaneous, burst (the instantaneous starburst, or ISB model), or may occur in a way that varies with time in a complex manner. For the blue circumnuclear SSCs, there is no evidence that star formation has been ongoing in these isolated clusters for any considerable time, and we adopt an ISB model for describing star formation in these systems. On the other hand, the nuclear star-forming regions of Arp 220 are probably at least 108 years old (Mouri & Taniguchi 1992; Prestwich, Joseph, & Wright 1994; Armus et al. 1995; Larkin et al. 1995). Yet there still appear to be ionizing sources in the nuclear region (Larkin et al. 1995, Kim et al. 1995, and Goldader et al. 1995). Therefore an ISB model will not work here, and we approximate star formation in the nuclear SSCs by a CSF model. On the other hand, there is a possibility that the nuclear SSCs are not the ongoing starburst discussed in the above papers but post-starburst and we also consider an ISB model for the nuclear SSCs, although we regard the CSF one as the more likely; 2) the stellar IMF. We adopt a Salpeter IMF with an upper mass cutoff of $`M_\mathrm{u}=100\mathrm{M}_{}`$ and a lower mass cutoff of $`M_\mathrm{l}=1\mathrm{M}_{}`$. We note that $`M_\mathrm{l}`$ might be larger in a violent star-forming region (see e.g. Goldader et al. 1997) and investigate the effect of the IMF on our results in the next section; 3) the initial gas metallicity. We assume solar metallicity ($`Z=0.02`$). Since the metallicity of galactic centre may be larger than the solar value, we also study the case of $`Z=0.04`$ (see the next section); 4) the age at which we observe the star clusters. We leave this as a free parameter in the range of $`2\times 10^5`$ yr to $`1\times 10^9`$ yr; 5) the effect of extinction. The total extinction can be regarded as the sum of two parts: 1) extinction from dust in Arp 220 along our line of sight to the SSCs, and 2) extinction from dust within the SSCs. The relative importance of these two regimes can be tested as follows. A screen model may be used to describe extinction along our line of sight to the SSCs, and the “onion-skin” model of Surace and Sanders (1999) may be used to quantify the extinction from dust within the SSCs. This comparison is made in Appendix A, where we show that (1) is the more important regime. We consequently adopt a screen model and leave the absolute value $`A_V`$ of the extinction in the $`V`$-band as a free parameter to be fit to the data, but impose the constraint that the extinction must vary with wavelength according to the extinction curve of Cardelli et al. (1989); 6) nebular emission. Starburst99 includes the nebular continuum emission which is proportional to the flux of ionizing photons. If all of the Lyman continuum photons are used to ionize the surrounding gas, the equivalent width of H$`\alpha `$ can reach 1000 Å and the $`R`$-band flux becomes twice as large as that from the continuum. However, the measured equivalent width of the H$`\alpha `$ emission line in Arp 220 is only 20 – 30 Å(Armus et al. 1989, Veilleux et al. 1995). If the equivalent width of H$`\alpha `$ emission of each SSC is the same as the total ones, the contribution of emission lines to the broadband photometry is then negligibly small. We neglect it here; 7) dust emission. Hot dust emission was required to interpret a $`K`$-band flux excess in previous studies (Surace & Sanders 1999 for warm ULIGs; Mazzarella et al. 1992 for the nuclei of Arp 220). However, there is little $`K`$-band flux excess for our sample. We ignore the hot dust emission in our models. Using maximum likelihood techniques, we determine the best-fitting model SEDs to the observed ones for the six SSCs. The likelihood is defined as

$$L=\underset{i}{\overset{6}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{F_{o,i}aF_{m,i}}{\sigma _i}\right]^2\right\}$$
(1)
where $`F_{o,i}`$, $`F_{m,i}`$ and $`\sigma _i`$ are the observed flux, the template flux, and the uncertainty of the observed flux of $`i`$-th band. The uncertainty of the photometry we adopted is $`\pm 0.4`$ mag for Shaya et al. (1994) and $`\pm 0.1`$ mag for Scoville et al. (1998). A scale factor $`a`$ is obtained as

$$a=\frac{{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}}F_{m,i}F_{o,i}/\sigma _i^2}{{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}}(F_{m,i})^2/\sigma _i^2}$$
(2)
from the condition of $`L/a=0`$. The results are summarized in Table 1 and the SEDs of best-fitting models are presented in Figure 2.

## 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

### 3.1 Properties of the nuclear SSCs

Figure 3 is a summary of the region of plausible parameters in the $`A_V`$ \- age plane for the nuclear SSCs. The results for the CSF model are shown in figure 3 (a) - (c) and those for the ISB model are shown in figure 3 (d) - (f).

The hatched region is the region of plausible parameters at the 99 % confidence level. We immediately see that the extinction $`A_V`$ along our lines of sight to the nuclear SSCs is very large ($`10`$ mag). These values are slightly larger than those evaluated by Shaya et al. (1994) while slightly smaller than those of Scoville et al. (1998). These differences can be attributed to the extinction curves adopted in the analyses \[Shaya et al. use the extinction curve of Savage & Mathis (1979), while Scoville et al. use that of Rieke & Lebofsky (1985)\].

On the other hand, it is difficult to determine the age of SSCs, due to strong parameter coupling with the extinction. A small change in $`A_V`$ mimics a substantial change in age in the sense that both shift the SED towards redder wavelengths.

We explain the rough shapes of the relevant parameter space as follows. If the stellar populations are very young (age $`<10^7`$ yr), $`A_V`$ must be very large, since the intrinsic slope of the continuum is very blue and a great deal of extinction is required to make it as red as is observed. For stellar populations older than several $`\times 10^7`$ yr, the allowed values of $`A_V`$ do not vary strongly with age since the slope of continuum does not vary with the age of the stars. At the age of $`10^7`$ yr in the ISB model, the plausible value of $`A_V`$ becomes small temporarily due to the presence of a large number of red supergiants at exactly this age.

Therefore, we cannot determine the ages of the nuclear SSCs this way. We must use additional measurements. For N1, there exists an independent constraint on the mass of the SSC from radio and millimetre observations. The mass of N1 as determined by the SED fit represents a locus of points in the $`A_V`$-age plane, and is shown in Figure 3 (the dashed line).

The position of N1 corresponds to the western nucleus observed to exhibit radio continuum, 1.3 mm dust continuum and the CO (1-0) and (2-1) lines (Scoville et al. 1997; Downes & Solomon 1998; Sakamoto et al. 1999). Millimetre spectroscopy (of CO lines) can be used to determine both a dynamical mass (from the line widths) and a molecular gas mass (from the line luminosities). From the results of Downes & Solomon (1998) and Sakamoto et al. (1999), we estimate a dynamical mass of this nucleus of $`2\times 10^9\mathrm{M}_{}`$ and a gas mass of $`1\times 10^9\mathrm{M}_{}`$ \[adopting the inclination parameter of Scoville et al. (1998)\]. The mass of the stellar component must be less than the difference between these two masses, which is $`1\times 10^9\mathrm{M}_{}`$. If there are other (highly obscured) stellar components present within the region, this number is an upper limit; if all the mass of N1 is in gas and observed stars, then this is an equality. The dashed lines in figure 3 (a) and (d) show the locus of SSCs with the mass of $`1\times 10^9\mathrm{M}_{}`$. The region of plausible parameters is now restricted to that to the left of the lines. The upper limits on the age of N1 are now $`2.0\times 10^8`$ yr for the CSF model and $`5.0\times 10^7`$ yr for the ISB model. The reason why we can set an upper limit of age is that the luminosity-to-mass ratio of the stellar cluster becomes smaller as it gets older and consequently a more massive cluster is required to radiate the observed flux.

The dynamical masses of N2 and N3 have not been measured. Although the eastern nucleus of Arp 220 has been detected in CO, the position of it corresponds to neither N2 nor N3. Instead it is an entirely different object (hereafter we call it as N4), coincident with the nuclear source SE in the near-infrared images of Scoville et al. (1998). Based on the fact that N1 and N4 only exhibit non-thermal radio continuum, thermal dust continuum, and molecular gas, Scoville et al. (1998) suggested that these two objects represent the most substantial mass concentrations in the centre of Arp 220.

We now consider yet another way to constrain the range of ages of the nuclear SSCs. The strength of CO absorption index at 2.29 $`\mu `$m constrains the ages since it is sensitive primarily to the presence of red K supergiants, which are stars with a narrow age distribution, particularly in the ISB models. The CO index of the centre of Arp 220 is known to be strong: $`0.24\pm 0.01`$ mag (Goldader et al. 1995), $`0.20\pm 0.05`$ mag (Shier et al. 1996), and $`>0.20`$ mag \[Armus et al. (1995) for the central $`0.7\times 2`$ arcsec2\]. Although the CO indices of each SSC are not individually observed, if we assume that all three nuclear SSCs have a CO index larger than 0.20 mag, then we get following additional constraint on the ages: $`8.1\times 10^6\mathrm{age}/\mathrm{yr}4.5\times 10^7`$ for the ISB model, or $`1.2\times 10^7\mathrm{age}/\mathrm{yr}<1.2\times 10^8`$ for the CSF model. In the case of the ISB model, the CO index is 0 mag until the age of $`7.1\times 10^6`$ yr and become strong rapidly at later times, reaching 0.2 mag at the age of $`8.0\times 10^6`$ yr, which corresponds to the main-sequence lifetime of the stars with mass of 25 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$, the main progenitors of the K supergiants. After that, the CO index decreases gradually and becomes smaller than 0.2 mag at $`4.5\times 10^7`$ yr. In the case of the CSF model, since newly formed red supergiants keep the CO index strong, the CO index continues to be larger than 0.2 mag for a longer time than for the ISB model. The strength of the CO index is modified slightly by dust as follows. Since the continuum level is determined on the blue side of CO band, dust extinction has the effect of causing us to underestimate the continuum and therefore to underestimate the CO index. Ignoring dust emission at 2.3 microns has the same effect since the SED of the dust component is rising towards longer wavelengths. If the intrinsic value of CO index is larger than we think, then the upper limit of the age of SSCs become smaller. Ignoring the effects of dust therefore does not invalidate the upper limits we present.

Rieke et al. (1985) reported that the equivalent width of H$`\beta `$ absorption within the central 2.5 arcsec of Arp 220 is 4 Å. This value of the Balmer absorption is incompatible with such a strong CO index for single stellar cluster. Probably this discrepancy arises because the Balmer feature originates from old foreground (possibly progenitor galaxy) stars that happen to lie at low optical depth and are quite unrelated to the SSCs. The flux of the nuclear region of Arp 220 at very blue wavelengths is therefore likely to be dominated by foreground stars at low skin-depth. Recall that the nuclear SSCs were not observed in the $`V`$-band so the extinction at these short wavelengths is probably quite high.

We can now estimate the maximum bolometric luminosity emitted from the nuclear star clusters from the above results. For the ISB model, the maximum bolometric luminosities of N1, N2, N3 are $`1.0\times 10^{11}\mathrm{L}_{}`$, $`1.2\times 10^{10}\mathrm{L}_{}`$ and $`4.1\times 10^{10}\mathrm{L}_{}`$. The sum of these luminosities is $`1.5\times 10^{11}\mathrm{L}_{}`$ which is about one-tenth of the bolometric luminosity of Arp 220 ($`1.5\times 10^{12}\mathrm{L}_{}`$, Sanders et al. 1988). For the CSF model, the maximum bolometric luminosities of N1, N2, N3 are $`1.9\times 10^{11}\mathrm{L}_{}`$, $`2.2\times 10^{10}\mathrm{L}_{}`$ and $`7.6\times 10^{10}\mathrm{L}_{}`$. The sum of these is $`2.9\times 10^{11}\mathrm{L}_{}`$ which is about one-fifth of the bolometric luminosity of Arp 220. We can therefore state with some confidence that if most of the total bolometric luminosity of Arp 220 arises from the nucleus, more than four-fifths of it arises from highly obscured starbursts (or possibly an AGN).

The results depend on the IMF as follows. A steeper IMF decreases the implied ages of the star clusters. For example, IMF with ($`\alpha =3.30`$, $`M_\mathrm{u}=100\mathrm{M}_{}`$, $`M_\mathrm{l}=1\mathrm{M}_{}`$) decreases the maximum ages derived from the stellar mass ($`<10^9\mathrm{M}_{}`$) to $`1.6\times 10^7`$ yr for the CSF model or $`1.4\times 10^7`$ yr for the ISB model. On the other hand, a truncated IMF increases the ages. For example, an IMF with ($`\alpha =2.35`$, $`M_\mathrm{u}=30\mathrm{M}_{}`$, and $`M_\mathrm{l}=1\mathrm{M}_{}`$) increases the upper limits on the ages to $`2.4\times 10^8`$ yr for the CSF model and $`5.2\times 10^7`$ yr for the ISB model. The evolution of CO index also depends on the IMF, since the number of red supergiants per unit total stellar mass at any time is a function of the IMF. If we adopt the steeper IMF as above, the range of ages when the CO index is larger than 0.2 mag is $`1.1\times 10^7\mathrm{age}/\mathrm{yr}7.1\times 10^7`$ for the CSF model or $`8.2\times 10^6\mathrm{age}/\mathrm{yr}3.6\times 10^7`$ for ISB model. For the truncated IMF, it is $`1.0\times 10^7\mathrm{age}/\mathrm{yr}1.6\times 10^8`$ for the CSF model or $`8.1\times 10^6\mathrm{age}/\mathrm{yr}4.5\times 10^7`$ for the ISB model. The bolometric luminosity emitted from the nuclear star clusters also depends on the IMF, since we have imposed a constraint on the mass. The bolometric luminosity ranges between $`2.9\times 10^{11}\mathrm{L}_{}`$ (CSF model with standard IMF) and $`1.4\times 10^{11}\mathrm{L}_{}`$ (ISB model with steeper IMF); the basic conclusions are unchanged.

The metallicities of many luminous elliptical galaxies (the probable fate of ultraluminous galaxies like Arp 220) are often considerably higher than solar (Faber 1973). It is therefore important to investigate how the results change if the metallicity is increased to twice solar (section 3.1, p.10), comparable to the values in the most luminous ellipticals (Faber 1973). For the SED fitting, the larger metallicity causes only a very small change, but the length of time when the CO index is strong is considerably longer. The range of ages when the CO index is larger than 0.2 mag is $`8.5\times 10^6\mathrm{age}/\mathrm{yr}3.0\times 10^8`$ for the CSF model or $`6.9\times 10^6\mathrm{age}/\mathrm{yr}5.4\times 10^7`$ for the ISB model. The maximum bolometric luminosities are $`3.4\times 10^{11}\mathrm{L}_{}`$ for CSF model and $`1.0\times 10^{11}\mathrm{L}_{}`$ for ISB model; the basic conclusions are also unchanged.

It is also useful to estimate how much of the difference between the total bolometric luminosities and the luminosities of the observed SSCs can be made up if one includes the contribution from N4, the SE nucleus seen in the near-infrared but not the optical images. From SED fitting, we derive a value of $`A_V12`$ mag (Figure 4), much smaller than the value of $`A_V20`$ mag evaluated by Scoville et al. (1998). This discrepancy comes from the fact that we use all three of the $`J`$-, $`H`$-, and $`K`$\- band fluxes for SED fitting, whereas Scoville et al. use only the $`HK`$ colour.

If, as for N1, we assume that the maximal mass of N4 is the dynamical mass minus the gas mass, and assume that the strength of the CO index is greater than 0.2 mag, we derive a maximum intrinsic luminosity of N4 of $`2.0\times 10^{10}\mathrm{L}_{}`$ for ISB model or $`3.7\times 10^{10}\mathrm{L}_{}`$ for CSF model.

Adding these values to the summation of the bolometric luminosities of N1 - N3, we derive a maximum bolometric luminosity emitted from the nuclear SSCs of $`1.73\times 10^{11}\mathrm{L}_{}`$ for the ISB model and $`3.22\times 10^{11}\mathrm{L}_{}`$ for the CSF model. These values are still much smaller than the total bolometric luminosity of Arp 220. Again, this result is essentially not affected by the IMF or metallicity.

Therefore the conclusion that most of the bolometric luminosity we see originating from the nucleus of Arp 220 comes from heavily obscured star formation seems unavoidable. At optical and near-infrared wavelengths we see only a small fraction (less than one-fifth) of it. The fact that the total luminosity of observed sources cannot account for the bolometric luminosity is similar to those derived for the putative nuclei of warm ULIGs (Surace & Sanders 1999).

### 3.2 Properties of the circumnuclear SSCs

Figures 3 (g) - (i) summarize the allowed regions on the $`A_V`$ \- age plane for the circumnuclear SSCs. The data require total extinctions of $`A_V<1`$ mag, far less than for the nuclear SSCs. Because of this low extinction, the cluster ages, masses, and luminosities are much better constrained by the SED fits than for the nuclear clusters. We find that the upper limits on the ages of the SSCs are $`2.0\times 10^6`$ yr, $`4.6\times 10^8`$ yr, and $`8.4\times 10^8`$ yr for C1, C2 and C3. These results are very different from those of Scoville et al. (1998), who suggests that they may be as old as ($`10^9`$ years) the central globular clusters of NGC 5128 (Frogel 1984), because of the similarity of near-infrared colours. We attribute this slight redness of the star clusters to a little amount of dust rather than to a very large age. We also mention that since the near-infrared colours of star clusters mainly depend on the colours of red supergiants and red giants, the evolution of near-infrared colours is small for the age larger than $`10^7`$ yr. On the other hand, the optical colours, which mainly determined by the colours of the upper main sequence stars, evolve gradually from blue to red for the Hubble time. It is therefore useful to use the optical colours to determine the age of SSCs.

We summarize the best-fitting parameters for the circumnuclear SSCs in Table 1. The masses of the SSCs are about $`10^5\mathrm{M}_{}`$, similar to the masses of galactic globular clusters. Maybe these are the globular clusters hypothesized to form during mergers by Zepf & Ashman (1993), who note that elliptical galaxies (thought to be merger remnants) have higher specific globular cluster frequencies than spiral galaxies (thought to be merger progenitors), and that the metallicity distributions of the globular clusters in the ellipticals are bimodal. The luminosities of the SSCs are about $`10^8\mathrm{L}_{}`$. Therefore C1 - 3 contribute negligibly to the total bolometric luminosity of Arp 220. This result is unchanged if we consider the other circumnuclear SSCs which are detected only at near-infrared wavelengths.

We would like to thank Bob Joseph for his useful comments and suggestions on an earlier version of our manuscript. YS thanks the Japan Society for Promotion of Science (JSPS) Research Fellowships for Young Scientist. NT thanks the PPARC for financial support. This work was financially supported in part by Grant-in-Aids for the Scientific Research (Nos. 07044054, 10044052, and 10304013) of the Japanese Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture.

## Appendix A Onion-skin model of extinction

Throughout this work we have used a screen model to quantify extinction by dust. This assumes that all of the dust responsible for the extinction is distributed within Arp 220 between the SSCs and the observer, along our line of sight. This model is inadequate if the SSCs themselves possess significant amount of dust, and we investigate this possibility using the onion-skin model of Surace & Sanders (1999). In that model, to model the effect of mixed stars and dust, a distribution of the unreddened luminosity $`L_{A_V}`$ obscured by a given line-of-sight extinction $`A_V`$ is assumed to be a power-law form; $`L_{A_V}=L_{A_V=0}(A_V+1)^\alpha `$. The amount of internal extinction from within the SSC is therefore parameterised by two numbers: $`A_{V,\mathrm{max}}`$, which is a maximum value of $`A_V`$, and $`\alpha `$, which is a parameter modeling the distribution of dust within the SSCs (the case $`\alpha =0`$ corresponds to a scenario in which the dust and stars are well mixed; this is the case that we are worried about here). Figure A1 shows the SEDs of SSCs for some of these models; the relevant parameters are presented in Table A1. Here $`A_{V,s}`$ is the extinction from a screen component unassociated with the SSCs that is superimposed on the internal extinction.

The most important thing that we infer from the figure is that the shape of the SED is determined primarily by the foreground extinction. Were extinction from dust within the clusters to be the more important, we would expect a far higher visible-to-near-infrared flux ratio than is observed. Our use of the screen model in the SED fitting is therefore reasonable.

It is important to note, however, that, although the shapes of the SEDs are similar (compare the model 4 with the screen model), the flux of the well-mixed+screen model is smaller than that of the pure-screen model. This is because the stars with a large local $`A_V`$ do not contribute to the global SED of the SSC at visible and near-infrared wavelengths. Therefore the SSC luminosities evaluated in the main body of the paper are formally lower limits because of this danger of there existing very heavily obscured regions within the SSCs. These very-heavily obscured regions could be responsible for a substantial part of the bolometric luminosity of the SSCs or even the whole galaxy. Operationally, as far as the spectral energy distributions are concerned, these regions behave exactly like very-heavily obscured regions outside the SSCs, for example at the galaxy nucleus, as they have no measurable signature at the wavelengths studied here.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

It is known that quantum algebras belong to one of two types of Hopf algebras: quasitriangular and triangular . The $`q`$-deformed algebras by Drinfel’d and Jimbo belong to the first type. The algebras belong to the second type are called Jordanian quantum algebras or non-standard quantum algebras. The typical example of Jordanian quantum algebras is a deformation of $`sl(2)`$ introduced by Ohn . In general, triangular quantum algebras are obtained by applying Drifel’d twist to Lie algebras . The twisting that produces a isomorphic algebra to Ohn’s one is found in .

In this article, we discuss a new non-standard deformation of all types of classical Lie algebras, that can be regarded as an extension of non-standard quantum algebras introduced recently by Kulish $`etal.`$ . To make clear the novelty of our results and to fix notations, we briefly recall the definition of twisting and already known twisting for Lie algebras in the next section. The motivation of this study will be mentioned there. §3 is the main part of this article where the new non-standard deformation is introduced. As an physical example, we take an algebra of conformal transformations in (2+1) dimensional Minkowskian spacetime in §4. The equivalence of our result and another non-standard deformation by Herranz  is discussed. §5 is devoted to concluding remarks.

Drinfel’d developed the idea of twisting in his study of quasi-Hopf algebras, however, we restrict ourselves to ordinary Hopf algebras throughout this article.

## 2 Brief review of Drinfel’d twist

Let $`(_0,m_0,\mathrm{\Delta }_0,ϵ_0,S_0)`$ be a Hopf algebra, $`m_0,\mathrm{\Delta }_0,ϵ_0`$ and $`S_0`$ denote product, coproduct, counit and antipode of $`_0`$, respectively. Suppose that an invertible element $`_0_0`$, called twistor or twist element, satisfies

$$_{12}(\mathrm{\Delta }_0id)()=_{23}(id\mathrm{\Delta }_0)(),$$
(1)
$$(ϵ_0id)()=(idϵ_0)()=1,$$
(2)
where $`_{12}=1,_{23}=1`$ and $`id`$ denotes the identity mapping as usual. Then $`(_0,m_0,\mathrm{\Delta },ϵ_0,S)`$ with

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }_0^1,S=vS_0v^1,$$
(3)
is also a Hopf algebra. We denote this new Hopf algebra by $``$. The element $`v_0`$ is obtained from the twistor. Writing $`=_if_if^i`$, the element $`v`$ is given by $`v=_if_iS_0(f^i).`$ Note that, in the new Hopf algebra $``$, only coproduct and antipode are twisted, while product and coproduct are not changed. The universal $`R`$-matrix for $``$ is also obtained from the one for $`_0`$,

$$=_{21}R_0^1,$$
(4)
where $``$ and $`_0`$ are the universal $`R`$-matrices for $``$ and $`_0`$, respectively.

In the case of non-standard quantum algebras, $`_0`$ is a Lie algebra (strictly speaking, universal enveloping algebra of a Lie algebra). Since the twisting does not change the product, non-standard quantum algebras have the same commutation relations as Lie algebras. However, they have deformed coproducts and antipodes. The triangularity of non-standard algebras stems from the fact that $`_0`$ for Lie algebras is given by $`11`$. The advantages of non-standard quantum algebras are: (i) since they have undeformed commutation relations, we know their irreducible representations, (ii) explicit form of universal $`R`$-matrix is known. Combining (i) and (ii), we obtain matrix representations of universal $`R`$-matrix, this gives us further advantages: (iii) dual quantum groups are easily obtained by FRT-formalism , (iv) covariant differential calculus are easily obtained, and so on.

As is clear from the above discussion, once we obtain a explicit form of twistor, the rest steps of construction of non-standard quantum algebras and groups are automatically carried out. Note that the possibility of twisting for a Lie algebra is not unique, namely, a Lie algebra admits some twistors. Note also that non-standard algebras have some physical applications (see $`e.g.`$ ,  and ) and quantum groups are convenient tool to describe non-commutative spacetime. Therefore, we think that it is important to investigate possible twistors for Lie algebras. In the study of twisting, the following observation is useful: Let $`𝒜`$ be a subalgebra of a Lie algebra $`_0`$ and $``$ is a twistor for the subalgebra $`𝒜`$. Then, the twistor $``$ can be regarded as a twistor for $`_0`$ and we can twist $`_0`$ with this twistor. In the following, we give five examples of twistors classified according to the subalgebra, then we discuss an extension of one of them.

Probably, the most wellknown twistors are the socalled Reshetikhin twist  and Jordanian twist . In the Reshetikhin twist, the Cartan subalgebra is used as the subalgebra. Thus any Lie algebras of rank $`2`$ admit Reshetikhin twist. On the other hand, the subalgebra for Jordanian twist is the Borel subalgebra: $`\{H,E|[H,E]=2E\}.`$ The explicit form of twistor is given by

$$_J=\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{2}H\sigma ),\sigma =\mathrm{ln}(1zE),$$
(5)
where $`z`$ is a deformation parameter. We denote a deformation parameter by $`z`$ throughout this article and $`z=0`$ corresponds to undeformed limit. Three nontrivial extensions of Jordanian twist were considered very recently . In , the Borel subalgebra is extended to four dimensional one that is a semidirect sum of Borel subalgebra and two additional elements $`A,B.`$ Let $`𝒜_E=\{H,E,A,B\}`$ be the subalgebra subject to the relations

$`[H,E]=\delta E,[H,A]=\alpha A,[H,B]=\beta B,`$ (6)
$`[A,B]=\gamma E,[E,A]=[E,B]=0,\alpha +\beta =\delta .`$
Then the following is a twistor

$$_E=\mathrm{exp}(ABe^{\beta \sigma /\delta })_J.$$
(7)
This twisting is called extended (Jordanian) twist. It is verified that all types of classical Lie algebra have the subalgebra $`𝒜_E.`$ We use different convention from  for the definition of $`\sigma `$, but this may not cause any confusion. The extension considered in  is certain limits of extended twists and called peripheric extended twists. The extended twists have nontrivial limits for $`\alpha 0`$ or $`\beta 0.`$ One can verify that the peripheric extended twists are applicable to inhomogeneous Lie algebras $`isu(n)`$ and $`iso(n).`$ In , regular injections $`𝒜_p𝒜_{p1}\mathrm{}𝒜_1𝒜_0`$ of Lie algebras and twistors of extended twists are considered. It is shown that a product of twistors of extended twists corresponding to each subsets $`𝒜_k(k=0,1,\mathrm{},p)`$ can produce a new twistor for the following sequences:

$`sl(n)sl(n2)\mathrm{}sl(n2k)\mathrm{},`$
$`so(2n)so(2n4)\mathrm{}so(2n4k)\mathrm{},`$
$`so(2n+1)\mathrm{}so(2n4k+1)\mathrm{}`$
The case of $`sp(n)`$ is also considered in , though the situation is different from other classical Lie algebras.

All twistors mentioned above except Rshetikhin twist have common properties: (i) twisted coproduct for $`\sigma `$ is primitive, that is, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\sigma )=\sigma 1+1\sigma ,`$ (ii) the twistors are factorizable, that is, they satisfy the relations

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }_0id)()=_{13}_{23},(id\mathrm{\Delta })()=_{12}_{13}.$$
(8)
These relations guarantee that the $``$ satisfies the condition (1).

In the next section, we consider a further extension of extended twists in such a way that the four dimensional subalgebra $`𝒜_E`$ is replaced with six dimensional one.

## 3 New twisting for classical Lie algebras

Let us consider an algebra $`𝒜`$ of six elements $`H_i,E_i,A,B(i=1,2)`$ satisfying

$`[H_i,E_i]=2E_i,`$
$`[H_1,H_2]=[E_1,E_2]=[H_1,E_2]=[H_2,E_1]=0,`$ (9)
$`[H_1,A]=A,[H_1,B]=B,[H_2,A]=A,[H_2,B]=B,`$
$`[A,E_1]=2B,[A,E_2]=0,[E_i,B]=0,[A,B]=E_2.`$
The four elements $`\{H_2,E_2,A,B\}`$ form the subalgebra $`𝒜_E`$ of extended twists ($`\alpha =\beta =\gamma =1`$). The additional elements $`H_1,E_1`$ form a Borel subalgebra, thus the algebra $`𝒜`$ is a semidirect sum of $`𝒜_E`$ and an extra Borel subalgebra. We can also regard the algebra $`𝒜`$ as a semidirect sum of $`\{A,B\}`$ and a direct sum of two Borel subalgebras

$$𝒜=(\{H_1,E_1\}\{H_2,E_2\})\{A,B\}.$$

The following invertible element $``$ satisfies the definition of twistor.

$$=\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{2}H_1\sigma _1)\mathrm{exp}(zABe^{\frac{1}{2}\sigma _2})\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{2}H_2\sigma _2)_,$$
(10)
where

$$\sigma _1=\mathrm{ln}(1z(E_1+zB^2e^{\sigma _2})),\sigma _2=\mathrm{ln}(1zE_2).$$
(11)
The two factors from the right are a extended twist and left most factor does not commute with the rest part of $``$. Therefore this is a nontrivial extension of extended twists. The twistor (10) has similar properties as extended twists. Namely, the twisted coproducts for $`\sigma _i`$ are primitive

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\sigma _i)=\sigma _i1+1\sigma _i,i=1,2,$$
(12)
and the $``$ is factorizable (see eq.(8)).

To prove the above statements, we first calculate the twisted coproducts of the elements of $`𝒜`$ by the twistor (10). They are given by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(H_1)=H_1e^{\sigma _1}+1H_1,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(E_1)=E_1e^{\sigma _1}+1E_12zB\rho e^{(\sigma _1+\sigma _2)/2}+z^2E_2\rho ^2e_,^{\sigma _2}`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(H_2)=H_2e^{\sigma _2}+1H_2+2zA\rho e^{(\sigma _1+\sigma _2)/2}+z^2H_1\rho ^2e_,^{\sigma _1}`$ (13)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(E_2)=E_2e^{\sigma _2}+1E_2,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(A)=Ae^{(\sigma _1+\sigma _2)/2}+1A+zH_1(B+zE_2\rho )e_,^{\sigma _1}`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(B)=Be^{(\sigma _1+\sigma _2)/2}+e^{\sigma _2}B,`$
where $`\rho =Be^{\sigma _2}.`$ With these coproducts, we can verify that the $`\sigma _i`$’s are primitive. It follows that the twistor (10) satisfies the factorizable relations (8). Thus we have proved that the $``$ satisfies the condition (1). The condition (2) is easily verified by noticing that $`ϵ_0(X)=0`$ for all elements of any Lie algebras.

The universal $`R`$-matrix of the twisted Lie algebra is given by

$`R=_{21}^1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sigma _1H_1)\mathrm{exp}(z\rho A)\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sigma _2H_2)`$ (14)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}H_2\sigma _2)\mathrm{exp}(zA\rho )\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}H_1\sigma _1).`$
One can easily write down the corresponding classical $`r`$-matrix that solves the classical Yang-Baxter equation by keeping up to the first order of the deformation parameter

$$r=\frac{1}{2}H_1E_1+\frac{1}{2}H_2E_2+AB.$$
(15)
We next show that all types of classical Lie algebras have the six dimensional subalgebra $`𝒜,`$ namely, we obtain new non-standard quantum algebras. For $`sl(n),`$ it is convenient to work with canonical basis

$$[E_{ab},E_{cd}]=E_{ad}\delta _{bc}E_{cb}\delta _{ad},a,b,c,d=1,\mathrm{},n.$$
(16)
In this case, the six dimensional subalgebra $`𝒜`$ is found for $`n4`$

$`H_1={\displaystyle \underset{n/2k2}{}}(E_{kk}E_{nk+1,nk+1}),E_1={\displaystyle \underset{n/2k2}{}}E_{k,nk+1},`$
$`H_2=E_{11}E_{nn},E_2=E_{1n},`$ (17)
$`A=2{\displaystyle \underset{n/2k2}{}}b^{1,nk+1}E_{1k}2{\displaystyle \underset{n1\lambda >n/2}{}}b^{n\lambda +1,n}E_{\lambda n},`$
$`B={\displaystyle \underset{n/2k2}{}}b^{k,n}E_{kn}+{\displaystyle \underset{n1\lambda >n/2}{}}b^{1,\lambda }E_{1\lambda },`$
where the complex coefficients $`b^{a,b}`$’s have to satisfy

$$4\underset{n/2k2}{}b^{1,nk+1}b^{k,n}=1.$$
(18)
This condition on the coefficients stems from the commutation relation $`[A,B]=E_2.`$ Other commutation relations are hold for any values of $`b_.^{a,b}`$

We also use the canonical basis for $`so(n)`$.

$`[Y_{ab},Y_{cd}]=i(Y_{ad}\delta _{bc}+Y_{bc}\delta _{ad}Y_{ac}\delta _{bd}Y_{bd}\delta _{ac}),`$ (19)
$`Y_{ab}=Y_{ba},a,b,c,d=1,\mathrm{},n.`$
In this case, the $`𝒜`$ is found for $`n5.`$

$`H_1=Y_{1n}+Y_{1n1},E_1=Y_{1n1}Y_{2n}+iY_{12}+iY_{n1n},`$
$`H_2=Y_{1n}Y_{1n1},E_2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(Y_{1n1}+Y_{2n}iY_{12}+iY_{n1n}),`$ (20)
$`A={\displaystyle \underset{k=3}{\overset{n2}{}}}a^k(Y_{n1k}iY_{2k}),B={\displaystyle \underset{k=3}{\overset{n2}{}}}a^k(Y_{kn}iY_{1k}).`$
The commutation relation $`[A,B]=E_2`$ imposes a condition on the coefficients $`a_.^k`$

$$2\underset{k=3}{\overset{n2}{}}(a^k)^2=1,a^k𝐂.$$
(21)
For $`sp(2n),`$ the six dimensional subalgebra $`𝒜`$ is found for $`n2.`$ In terms of the canonical basis

$`[Z_{ab},Z_{cd}]=\mathrm{sign}(bc)(Z_{ad}\delta _{bc}+Z_{bc}\delta _{ad}+Z_{ac}\delta _{bd}+Z_{bd}\delta _{ca}),`$ (22)
$`Z_{ab}=\mathrm{sign}(ab)Z_{ba},a,b=\pm 1,\mathrm{},\pm n,`$
the elements of $`𝒜`$ are given by

$`H_1={\displaystyle \underset{k=2}{\overset{n}{}}}Z_{kk},E_1={\displaystyle \underset{k=2}{\overset{n}{}}}Z_{kk},H_2=Z_{11},E_2=Z_{11},`$ (23)
$`A={\displaystyle \underset{k=2}{\overset{n}{}}}a^kZ_{1k},B={\displaystyle \underset{k=2}{\overset{n}{}}}a^kZ_{k1}.`$
A condition on the coefficients $`a^k`$’s are obtained same way as $`sl(n)`$ and $`so(n)`$

$$\underset{k=2}{\overset{n}{}}(a^k)^2=1,a^k𝐂.$$
(24)
We have seen that all types of classical Lie algebras can be twisted by the six dimensional subalgebra $`𝒜`$. Other combinations of elements of Lie algebras could realize the subalgebra $`𝒜.`$ An appropriate choice could be found when physical applications of twisted algebras are considered.

## 4 Conformal algebra of (2+1)-dimensional spacetime

In this section, we apply the twisting by $`𝒜`$ to the algebra $`_3so(3,2)`$: the algebra of conformal transformations in the (2+1)-dimensional Minkowskian spacetime. We consider the following basis of $`_3=\{J,P_\mu ,K_i,C_\mu ,D\}`$ where $`\mu =0,1,2,i=1,2`$ and $`J`$ is a generator of rotations, $`P_0`$ time translations, $`P_i`$ space translations, $`K_i`$ boosts, $`C_\mu `$ special conformal transformations, and $`D`$ dilatations. The commutation relations of the algebra are given in eq.(1.1) of . The subalgebra $`𝒜`$ is given by

$`H_1=D+K_1,E_1=P_0+P_1,H_2=DK_1,`$ (25)
$`E_2=P_0P_1,A=K_2+J,B=P_2.`$
Therefore, we have obtained a twisted $`_3`$ that has undeformed commutation relations but deformed coproducts. It may be remarkable that no generators of conformal transformations appear in the algebra $`𝒜`$.

On the other hand, another non-standard deformation of $`_3`$ is considered in . We denote it by $`U_z(_3)`$ and its generators by $`\stackrel{~}{J},\stackrel{~}{P}_\mu etc`$. The algebra $`U_z(_3)`$ is defined by deformed commutation relations and deformed coproducts (eqs.(3.3)-(3.6) of ). The universal $`R`$-matrix for $`U_z(_3)`$ is not known. We here give two observations that imply an equivalence between our twisted $`_3`$ and $`U_z(_3).`$ First, there exist an invertible mapping between the Weyl subalgebras of twisted $`_3`$ and $`U_z(_3)`$

$`\stackrel{~}{D}=D,\stackrel{~}{J}=J,\stackrel{~}{K}_i=K_i,`$ (26)
$`\stackrel{~}{P}_0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2z}}(\sigma _1+\sigma _2),\stackrel{~}{P}_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2z}}(\sigma _1\sigma _2),\stackrel{~}{P}_2=P_2e^{\sigma _2}.`$
By this mapping, both undeformed commutation relations and deformed coproducts of twisted $`_3`$ are transformed into the corresponding ones of $`U_z(_3).`$ The mapping for $`C_\mu `$ is not known. Probably, it has quite complicated form. Second, twisted $`_3`$ and $`U_z(_3)`$ have the same classical $`r`$-matrix

$$r=z(DP_0+K_1P_1+(K_2+J)P_2).$$
(27)
This classical $`r`$-matrix (and more general form with two deformation parameters) was firstly discussed in . If the equivalence is true, by using (26) we can easily write down the universal $`R`$-matrix for $`U_z(_3)`$ in terms of its generators.

Two contractions of $`_3`$, that produce conformal algebras of the (2+1) Galilean and the Carroll spacetime, are also considered in  and corresponding contractions for $`U_z(_3)`$ are analyzed. It is impossible to apply the contractions to our twistor, since the contracted algebras do not have the six dimensional subalgebra $`𝒜`$. However, we can find twistors for each contracted algebras and these twistors give the same classical $`r`$-matrices as . For the conformal algebra of the Galilean spacetime,

$$=\mathrm{exp}(zK_1P_1)\mathrm{exp}(zK_2P_2).$$
(28)
The commutation relations of this algebra are given in eq.(1.4) of . Two factors of (28) commute each other. For the conformal algebra of the Carroll spacetime

$$=\mathrm{exp}(D\sigma )\mathrm{exp}(zK_1P_1e^\sigma )\mathrm{exp}(zK_2P_2e^\sigma ),$$
(29)
where $`\sigma =\mathrm{ln}(1zP_0).`$ The commutation relations of this algebra are eq.(1.5) of . Three factors of (29) commute one another.

## 5 Concluding remarks

In this article, we have shown a new twistor that is an extension of the extended twists is applicable to all types of classical Lie algebras. Consequently new non-standard deformations of $`sl(n),so(n)`$ and $`sp(2n)`$ was obtained. When the twistor is applied to the algebra $`_3`$, the obtained algebra seems to be equivalent to a non-standard deformation of $`_3`$ by Herranz.

It is natural to ask whether the peripheric extended twists have a similar extension. Since the twists discussed in §3 do not contain free parameters ($`\alpha ,\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ of the extended twists), we can not repeat the same discussion as . However, it turns out that the peripheric extended twists have an extension  where a five dimensional subalgeba is used instead of the six dimensional one. This extension of peripheric extended twists is appropriate to deform inhomegeneous Lie algebras.

Finally, we mention a physical application of the twisted algebras. It is known that symmetries of free massless Klein-Gordon equation are given by conformal algebras . We mean, by symmetry, transformations of solutions into other solutions. If a difference analogue of Klein-Goldon equation on the uniform lattice is considered in (2+1)-dimensional spacetime, the twisted $`_3`$ can be regarded as its symmetry algebra. This will be discussed elsewhere. The similar situation was considered for (1+1)-dimensional free Schrödinger equation .

After finishing this article, a paper  that obtains the same result for $`so(5)`$ was submitted to the preprint archive.

## Acknowledgments

The author would like to express his sincere thanks to Prof. H.-D. Doebner for his warm hospitality at Technical University of Clausthal. He also thanks Dr. F. J. Herranz for sending me some of his papers. He is grateful to Prof. Lukierski for pointing out the paper  to him. The work was supported by the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture, Japan.


text:
# Untitled Document

General energy bounds for systems of bosons

with soft cores

Richard L. Hall

Department of Mathematics and Statistics,

Concordia University,

1455 de Maisonneuve Boulevard West,

Montréal, Québec, Canada H3G 1M8.

email: rhall@cicma.concordia.ca

Abstract

We study a bound system of $`N`$ identical bosons interacting by model pair potentials of the form $`V(r)=\lambda \mathrm{sgn}(p)r^p+\frac{\mu }{r^2},`$ $`\lambda >0,\mu 0.`$ By using a variational trial function and the ‘equivalent $`2`$-body method’, we find explicit upper and lower bound formulas for the $`N`$-particle ground-state energy in arbitrary spatial dimensions $`d3`$ for the two cases $`p=2`$ and $`p=1.`$ It is demonstrated that the upper bound can be systematically improved with the aid of a special large-$`N`$ limit in collective field theory. PACS 03.65.Ge; 31.15.Pf; 03.75.Fi.

1. Introduction The principal subject of this paper is the ground-state energy of a system composed of $`N`$ identical bosons bound together by pair potentials. Such systems usually collapse in the large-$`N`$ limit; that is to say, the binding energy per particle rises with $`N`$ to infinity \[1-2.\] In two earlier papers we studied gravitating boson systems , and systems of bosons or fermions which interact by wider classes of purely attractive pair potential . In the present paper we extend this work for the boson case to systems with pair potentials which bind the system but have a soft repulsive core of the form $`\frac{\mu }{r^2}.`$ The methods we develop to analyse these systems may have application to models for Bose-Einstein condensates  in which there is at present much renewed interest \[7-17\]. As in our earlier work, the goal of the present study is to provide simple general energy bounds as functions of the parameters $`m,`$ $`\lambda ,`$ $`\mu ,`$ and $`N.`$ Since is not difficult to do so, we also allow for an arbitrary number $`d3`$ of spatial dimensions.

Formulas for $`N`$-particle upper and lower energy bounds are derived for pair potentials $`V_{ij}=V_of(r_{ij})`$ whose shapes $`f(r)`$ are either harmonic oscillators with a soft core $`f(r)=\lambda r^2+\frac{\mu }{r^2},`$ or Kratzer potentials $`f(r)=\frac{\lambda }{r}+\frac{\mu }{r^2}.`$ The shapes of these two potentials are shown in Fig.(1) for $`\lambda =\mu =1.`$ The first of the models could perhaps be considered as a generalization of the soluble $`1`$-dimensional Calogero model \[18- 20\] to dimension $`d3.`$ For such potentials, with minima $`f(\widehat{r})`$ at $`r=\widehat{r}>0,`$ provided there are enough spatial dimensions available ($`d+1N`$) for every pair distance to satisfy $`r_{ij}=\widehat{r},`$ then, in classical mechanics the lowest energy would be equal to $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N}{2}\right)V_of(\widehat{r}).`$ This expression provides a lower energy bound in both classical and quantum mechanics; our general energy bounds (valid for all $`N2`$) will show that this value is approached asymptotically for large $`V_o`$ in the limit $`d\mathrm{};`$ this is possible because the positive contribution from zero-point oscillations varies like $`(N1)(NV_o)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ and is eventually dominated by the static potential term.

The non-individuality of identical quantum-mechanical particles introduces a very powerful constraint which allows us to relate the $`N`$-body problem to a specially constructed (reduced) $`2`$-body problem having an overall factor of $`N1`$ and a potential enhanced by $`N/2,`$ corresponding respectively to the $`N1`$ relative kinetic-energy operators and the $`N(N1)/2`$ pair potentials. This ‘equivalent two-body’ notion, which is central to our approach to the study of these systems, will be formulated explicitly in Section (2). The $`N`$-body energy $``$ is described by function $`E=F_N(v)=/(N1),`$ where $`v=\frac{N}{2}V_o,`$ and $`V_o`$ is the coupling parameter (in units $`\mathrm{}=m=1`$). Since $`v`$ includes the factor $`N,`$ it follows that if we consider a finite value of $`v`$ and let $`N\mathrm{},`$ this implies that $`V_o0.`$ The well-known exactly-soluble $`\delta `$-potential problem in one dimension  provides a convenient illustration of the energy function $`F(v).`$ If $`V(r)=V_o\delta (r),`$ we have exactly

$$\frac{}{N1}=E=F_N\left(v\right)=\frac{1}{6}\left[1+\frac{1}{N}\right]v^2,N2,v=\frac{N}{2}V_o.$$
$`\left(1.1\right)`$
The shape of the potential dictates the form $`v^2`$ of these energy curves, and there is a distinct curve for each value of $`N2.`$ The curves of this particular example satisfy the general functional inequalities

$$F_2\left(v\right)E=F_N\left(v\right)F_{\mathrm{}}\left(v\right)F_\varphi \left(v\right)F_G\left(v\right),$$
$`\left(1.2\right)`$
where, as will be explained later, $`F_\varphi (v)`$ is an upper bound obtained with the aid of collective-field theory in the large-$`N`$ limit, and $`F_G(v)`$ is the upper-bound curve obtained by employing an $`N`$-body translation-invariant Gaussian trial wave function. The ordering of the $`F_N(v)`$ curves with $`N`$ is a consequence of the monotonic increase in the severity of the boson-symmetrization constraint with increasing $`N.`$ For the soluble $`\delta `$-potential model we have  explicitly: $`F_{\mathrm{}}(1)=1/6,`$ $`F_\varphi (1)=0.164868,`$ and $`F_G(1)=1/2\pi .`$ The family of densities used for the variational collective-field upper bound is given by

$$\varphi \left(r\right)=e^{\left(r/b\right)^q},b,q>0.$$
$`\left(1.3\right)`$
The energy is minimized with respect to the positive scale and power parameters $`b`$ and $`q.`$ The effectiveness of this useful $`2`$-parameter family of trial densities is also demonstrated by the applications discussed in Sections (4) and (5) below. We conjecture that $`F_\varphi (v)`$ is close to $`F_{\mathrm{}}(v)`$ for the more general problems considered in this paper but we know no way of proving such a claim at this time. For another well-known soluble problem, the $`d`$-dimensional harmonic oscillator $`V(r)=V_or^2,`$ with , $`d1,`$ the inequalities (1.2) all collapse together to the common exact value $`E=dv^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$

2. The $`N`$-body problem in the centre-of-mass frame The Hamiltonian, with center-of-mass removed, for a system of $`N`$ identical particles each of mass $`m`$ interacting via central pair potentials may be written

$$=\frac{1}{2m}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\text{p}_i^2\frac{1}{2mN}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\text{p}_i\right)^2+\underset{j>i=1}{\overset{N}{}}V_of\left(\frac{\left|\text{r}_i\text{r}_j\right|}{a}\right),$$
$`\left(2.1\right)`$
where $`V_o`$ and $`a`$ are respectively the depth and range parameters of the potential with shape $`f.`$ By algebraic rearrangement (2.1) may be rewritten in the more symmetrical form

$$=\underset{j>i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left\{\frac{1}{2mN}\left(\text{p}_i\text{p}_j\right)^2+V_of\left(\frac{\left|\text{r}_i\text{r}_j\right|}{a}\right)\right\},$$
$`\left(2.2\right)`$
We now define new coordinates by $`\rho =BR,`$ where $`\rho =\left[\rho _i\right]`$ and $`R=\left[\text{r}_i\right]`$ are column vectors of the new and old coordinates, respectively, and $`B`$ is a real constant $`N\mathrm{x}N`$ matrix. For convenience we require all the rows of $`B`$ to be unit vectors, we let the elements of the first row all be equal to $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}},`$ so that $`\rho _1`$ is proportional to the centre-of-mass coordinate; we also require that the remaining $`N1`$ rows of $`B`$ be orthogonal to the first row, so that they define a set of $`N1`$ relative coordinates. One more row is also fixed so that we have at least one pair distance at our disposal, namely

$$\rho _2=\frac{\text{r}_1\text{r}_2}{\sqrt{2}}.$$
$`\left(2.3\right)`$
For boson systems, we have found that Jacobi relative coordinates, for which $`B`$ is orthogonal, are the most useful. Thus, corresponding to the transformation $`\rho =BR`$ of the coordinates, it follows that the column vector $`P`$ of the associated momenta transforms to the new momenta $`\mathrm{\Pi }=\left[\pi _i\right]`$ by the relation $`\mathrm{\Pi }=\left(B^T\right)^1P=P.`$ If $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is any translation-invariant wave function for the $`N`$-body system composed of identical bosons, then we can write  the following mean energy relation between the $`N`$-body and $`2`$-body systems:

$$(\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi })=(\mathrm{\Psi },\text{ }\text{H}\mathrm{\Psi }),$$
$`\left(2.4\right)`$
where the ‘reduced’ two-particle Hamiltonian  H is given by

$$\text{ }\text{H}=\left(N1\right)\left(\frac{1}{2m}\pi _2^2+\frac{N}{2}V_of\left(\frac{\sqrt{2}\left|\rho _2\right|}{a}\right)\right).$$
$`\left(2.5\right)`$
Further simplifications can be achieved if we work with dimensionless quantities. We suppose that the translation-invariant $`N`$-body energy is $``$ and we define the dimensionless energy and coupling parameters $`E`$ and $`v`$ by the expressions

$$E=\frac{ma^2}{\left(N1\right)\mathrm{}^2},v=\frac{NmV_oa^2}{2\mathrm{}^2}.$$
$`\left(2.6\right)`$
It is then natural to define a dimensionless versions of the reduced $`2`$-body Hamiltonian  H and the relative coordinate $`\rho _2`$ by the relations

$$H=\frac{m\text{ }\text{H}a^2}{\left(N1\right)\mathrm{}^2}=\mathrm{\Delta }+vf\left(r\right),\text{r}=\sqrt{2}\rho _2/a=\left(\text{r}_1\text{r}_2\right)/a,r=\text{r}.$$
$`\left(2.7\right)`$
We note that the Hamiltonian $`H`$ depends on $`N`$ only through the dimensionless coupling parameter $`v.`$ By the Rayleigh-Ritz (min-max) principle \[24-26\], we have the following characterization of the $`N`$-body ground-state energy parameter $`E`$ in terms of $`H:`$

$$E=\underset{\mathrm{\Psi }}{\mathrm{min}}\frac{(\mathrm{\Psi },H\mathrm{\Psi })}{(\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi })}=F_N\left(v\right),$$
$`\left(2.8\right)`$
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a translation-invariant function of the $`N1`$ relative coordinates (and spin variables, if any) which is symmetric under the permutation of the $`N`$ individual-particle indices. The $`N`$-body energy $``$ is recovered from $`E`$ by inverting (2.6). Thus we have explicitly:

$$=\frac{\left(N1\right)\mathrm{}^2}{ma^2}F_N\left(\frac{NmV_oa^2}{2\mathrm{}^2}\right).$$
$`\left(2.9\right)`$
However, for the remainder of this paper we shall work with the dimensionless form $`E=F_N(v):`$ the problem is to find or approximate $`F_N.`$ In each situation we shall have to specify the dimension $`d`$ of physical space; usually $`d=3.`$.

3. Energy bounds The energy bounds used in this paper are summarized in terms of the $`F`$ functions by Eq.(1.2). The history of the equivalent $`2`$-body method for boson systems has been described in the earlier papers  and in the references therein. The main result is a general energy lower bound which, for boson systems with orthogonal Jacobi relative coordinates, is given by

$$F_2\left(v\right)E=F_N\left(v\right),$$
$`\left(3.1\right)`$
where $`F_2(v)`$ is the lowest eigenvalue of the $`1`$-particle (‘reduced’ $`2`$-particle) Hamiltonian $`H=\mathrm{\Delta }+vf(r).`$ With equal simplicity, our weakest upper bound $`F_G(N),`$ provided by a Gaussian boson trial function $`\mathrm{\Psi },`$ may also be expressed in terms of the $`1`$-body operator $`H.`$ This is a consequence of the following argument. If and only if the symmetric translation-invariant function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is Gaussian , it may be factored in the form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(\rho _2,\rho _3,\mathrm{},\rho _N)=\psi \left(\rho _2\right)\eta (\rho _3,\rho _4,\mathrm{},\rho _N).$$
$`\left(3.2\right)`$
But the equivalence (2.4) then implies, in this case, that $`E(\psi ,H\psi )\psi ^2.`$ This explains why the inequalities (1.2) collapse together in the case of the harmonic oscillator for which the exact $`1`$-body lowest eigenfunction of $`H`$ is also Gaussian. In this argument we assume for the upper bound that $`<H>`$ has been optimized with respect to the scale of the wave function. The boson symmetry of these Gaussian functions is demonstrated most clearly by the following algebraic identity:

$$\underset{j>i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(\text{r}_i\text{r}_j\right)^2=N\underset{k=2}{\overset{N}{}}\rho _k^2.$$
$`\left(3.3\right)`$
The potentially better upper bound $`F_\varphi (N)`$ is more complicated both to derive and to compute . It is found by considering the collective field model in the large-$`N`$ limit. The energy so obtained is an upper bound to $`F_{\mathrm{}}(v)`$ and this, in turn, may be closely approximated from above by optimizing the right-hand side of the following equation:

$$F_N\left(v\right)F_\varphi \left(v\right)=\frac{1}{8}\frac{\left(\varphi \left(r\right)\right)^2}{\varphi \left(r\right)}d^dr+v\varphi \left(r\right)f\left(\left|rr^{}\right|\right)\varphi \left(r^{}\right)d^drd^dr^{},$$
$`\left(3.4\right)`$
where $`\varphi (r)`$ is a trial probability density function (for inter-particle distances) satisfying $`\varphi (r)d^dr=1.`$ It has been shown  that if $`\varphi `$ is Gaussian, and the energy is optimized with respect to a scale parameter, then the result $`F_\varphi (v)`$ is identical to the upper bound $`F_G(v)`$ obtained with the aid of a scale-optimized translation-invariant Gaussian trial wave function. The wider possible choice of the form of the probability density $`\varphi `$ allows us to transcend the Gaussian bound whilst still working essentially with a variational ‘function’ of single variable for the $`N`$-body problem.

In order to facilitate the reproduction of our results and the application of the method to other problems, we make the following explicit technical remarks concerning the case $`d=3.`$ It is very helpful to think of the probability density as a function $`\varphi (r)=w(r/b)=w(s),`$ which depends on the remaining parameter $`q,`$ to be discussed later. If we let $`I=_0^{\mathrm{}}w(s)s^2𝑑s,`$ then the kinetic energy integral becomes

$$<KE>=\frac{1}{8Ib^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\left(w^{}\left(s\right)\right)^2}{w\left(s\right)}s^2𝑑s$$
$`\left(3.5\right)`$
and potential energy integrals for pure powers may be written

$$<r^p>=\frac{b^p}{I^2\left(p+2\right)}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑tw\left(t\right)t_t^{\mathrm{}}𝑑sw\left(s\right)s\left\{\left(s+t\right)^{p+2}\left(st\right)^{p+2}\right\},p2.$$
$`\left(3.6\right)`$
For the case $`p=2`$ we have instead

$$<\frac{1}{r^2}>=\frac{1}{I^2b^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑tw\left(t\right)t_t^{\mathrm{}}𝑑sw\left(s\right)s\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{s+t}{st}\right).$$
$`\left(3.7\right)`$
With the terms expressed in this form, the minimization over scale $`b>0`$ can often be carried out explicitly yielding an algebraic expression which then needs to be minimized with respect to the remaining parameter $`q.`$ We have explored various alternative forms for $`w(s),`$ such as $`s^q\mathrm{exp}(s^2)`$ and $`\mathrm{exp}((sq)^2),`$ but have found it difficult to improve on the variable-power family $`w(s)=\mathrm{exp}(s^q)`$ which we have used to obtain the results discussed in detail in Sections (4) and (5) below.

4. The harmonic oscillator with a soft core We now choose the potential shape to be

$$f\left(r\right)=\lambda r^2+\frac{\mu }{r^2},\lambda >0,\mu 0.$$
$`\left(4.1\right)`$
The lower bound $`F_2(v)`$ is given by the lowest eigenvalue of $`H=\mathrm{\Delta }+vf(r)`$ in $`d`$ dimensions, a problem which is discussed, for example, in Ref. . The Gaussian upper bound $`F_G(v)`$ is provided by minimizing the Rayleigh quotient $`(\psi ,H\psi )/(\psi ,\psi )`$ with respect to the scale variable $`\alpha `$ in $`\psi (r)=e^{\frac{1}{2}\alpha r^2}`$ in $`d`$ dimensions. These calculations yield the following bounds on the $`N`$-boson energy parameter $`E`$ (the energy itself is recovered essentially by multiplying $`E`$ by $`N1,`$ according to Eq.(2.10))

$$2\left(v\lambda \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[1+\left(\mu v+\left(\frac{d}{2}1\right)^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right]<E<\left(dv\lambda \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[d+\frac{4v\mu }{d2}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}},d3.$$
$`\left(4.2\right)`$
The Gaussian trial wave function allows us to compute an approximate value for the mean-squared pair separation $`\sigma ^2,`$ a measure of the size of the system. We find

$$\sigma ^2=<\left(\text{r}_1\text{r}_2\right)^2>=\frac{d}{2\left(v\lambda \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}}\left(1+\frac{4v\mu }{d\left(d2\right)}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
$`\left(4.3\right)`$
We now look at some special cases. For the harmonic oscillator, $`\mu =0,`$ the inequalities collapse to the exact value $`E=d(v\lambda )^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$ The asymptotic forms of the bounds as $`v\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mu >0`$ are given by

$$2v\left(\lambda \mu \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}<E<2v\left(\lambda \mu \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\frac{d}{d2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
$`\left(4.4\right)`$
Thus for large $`N`$ the energy per particle $`E`$ increases like $`N,`$ although the ‘size’ of the system (as estimated by the Gaussian wave function) approaches the constant value $`\sigma =\left(d/\left(d2\right)\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}\left(\mu /\lambda \right)^{\frac{1}{4}}.`$ If $`d`$ is now taken large, the asymptotic form of the energy approaches the classical expression $`E=vf\left(\widehat{r}\right),`$ where $`\widehat{r}=\sigma =\left(\mu /\lambda \right)^{\frac{1}{4}}`$ is the position of the minimum of $`f\left(r\right).`$

For the special case $`d=3`$ we obtain in general

$$\left(v\lambda \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[2+\left(1+4\mu v\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right]<E<\left(v\lambda \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[9+12v\mu \right]^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
$`\left(4.5\right)`$
These results are shown in Fig.(2) along with the improved upper bound (‘dashed’ curve) obtained with the trial probability density function (1.3). The extreme optimal $`q(v)`$ values in the range shown were: $`q(2)=2.8593,q(20)=4.460.`$ Hence the optimal probability density $`\varphi (r)`$ is found to be quite far from Gaussian.

5. The Kratzer potential The Kratzer potential has shape function given \[30-39\] by

$$f\left(r\right)=\frac{\lambda }{r}+\frac{\mu }{r^2},\lambda >0,\mu 0.$$
$`\left(5.1\right)`$
The $`N`$-particle lower bound $`F_2(v)`$ is provided by the lowest eigenvalue of $`H=\mathrm{\Delta }+vf(r)`$ in $`d`$ dimensions, a problem which is discussed, for example, in Ref. . Meanwhile an exactly similar calculation to that described in Section (4), with a Gaussian trial function, generates the corresponding upper bound. We find in this way that the energy parameter $`E`$ satisfies the following inequalities:

$$\frac{\left(v\lambda \right)^2}{\left[1+\left(\left(d2\right)^2+4v\mu \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right]^2}<E<\frac{\left(v\lambda \gamma _d\right)^2}{\left[2d+\frac{8v\mu }{d2}\right]},d3,$$
$`\left(5.2\right)`$
where the $`d`$-dependent constant $`\gamma _d`$ is given by

$$\gamma _d=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{d1}{2}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{d}{2}\right)},\gamma _3=\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi }}.$$
$`\left(5.3\right)`$
The Gaussian trial wave function again allows us to compute an approximate value for the mean-squared pair separation. We find

$$\sigma ^2=<\left(\text{r}_1\text{r}_2\right)^2>=\frac{d^3}{2\left(v\lambda \gamma _d\right)^2}\left(1+\frac{4v\mu }{d\left(d2\right)}\right)^2.$$
$`\left(5.4\right)`$
For the pure gravitational case $`\mu =0`$ the energy inequalities become

$$\frac{\left(v\lambda \right)^2}{\left(d1\right)^2}<E<\frac{\left(v\lambda \gamma _d\right)^2}{2d}.$$
$`\left(5.5\right)`$
The asymptotic forms of the bounds as $`v\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mu >0`$ are given by

$$\frac{v\lambda ^2}{4\mu }<E<\frac{v\lambda ^2}{4\mu }M\left(d\right),\mathrm{where}M\left(d\right)=\left[\frac{\gamma _d^2\left(d2\right)}{2}\right].$$
$`\left(5.6\right)`$
The function $`M\left(d\right)`$ increases monotonically with $`d`$ to 1; $`M\left(3\right)=2/\pi 0.63662;`$ $`M\left(8\right)>0.9.`$ Thus, as for the previous model, the energy per particle $`E`$ increases like $`N.`$ Meanwhile the size (as estimated by the Gaussian wave function) approaches the constant value $`\sigma =(2\sqrt{2}d/\left(\gamma _d(d2)\right)(\mu /\lambda ).`$ If $`d`$ is now taken large, the asymptotic form of the energy (again) approaches the classical expression $`E=vf\left(\widehat{r}\right),`$ in which $`\widehat{r}=\sigma =2\mu /\lambda `$ is the position of the minimum of $`f\left(r\right).`$

For the special case $`d=3`$ we obtain in general

$$\frac{\left(v\lambda \right)^2}{\left[1+\left(1+4v\mu \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right]^2}<E<\frac{\left(v\lambda \right)^2}{\pi \left[\frac{3}{2}+2v\mu \right]}.$$
$`\left(5.7\right)`$
The bounds for three dimensions are shown in Fig.(3), along with the improved upper bound (‘dashed’ curve) obtained with the trial probability density function (1.3). The extreme optimal $`q(v)`$ values in the range shown were for this problem: $`q(2)=2.0017,q(20)=3.237.`$ The optimal probability density (in this family) is found to be almost Gaussian for small $`v<3`$ but very different from Gaussian for larger values of $`v.`$

6. Conclusion The main purpose of this paper is to derive general bounds for the energy of $`N`$-boson systems which are bound together by pair potentials with soft cores. We have examined two such models and we have provided upper and lower bound formulas valid for all $`N2`$ and $`d3,`$ and for all values of the potential parameters that bind the system. These bounds are expressed in terms of the energy parameter $`E=/(N1)=F_N(v),`$ where (in units with $`\mathrm{}=m=1`$) $`v=NV_o/2.`$ If the potential shape is such that $`F_2(v)`$ is close to $`F_{\mathrm{}}(v),`$ then we obtain close upper and lower bounds valid for all $`N2.`$ The upper bound $`F_G(v)`$ provided by a Gaussian trial function may be improved to $`F_\varphi (v)`$ which is derived by using a (possibly non-Gaussian) trial probability density $`\varphi `$ in a limiting form of collective field theory. In order to do significantly better one might hand craft a trial wave function for a particular $`f(r)`$ and $`N.`$ Of course, to be secure about this wave function one would still need to find a good lower bound, a goal usually not easy to achieve. The global results we have obtained show that these boson systems are asymptotically bounded by expressions of the form $`cN^2;`$ if $`d`$ is also large, we have shown that the heuristic classical expression $`=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N}{2}\right)V_of(\widehat{r})`$ is reached asymptotically. Since the many-body problem continues to offer a serious challenge for direct numerical solution, it is very helpful to have some explicit analytic upper and lower energy bounds and size estimates for model systems such those discussed in this paper.

Acknowledgment  Partial financial support of this work under Grant No. GP3438 from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada is gratefully acknowledged. References

 W. Thirring, Found. Phys. 20, 1103, (1990).

 W. Thirring, A Course in Mathematical Physics 4: Quantum Mechanics of Large Systems (Springer, New York, 1983).

 R. L. Hall, Phys. Rev. A 45, 7682 (1992).

 R. L. Hall, Phys. Rev. A 51, 3499 (1995).

 R. H. Fowler and H. Jones, Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 34, 573 (1938).

 O. Penrose and L. Onsager, Phys. Rev. 104, 576 (1956).

 G. Bayme and C.J. Pethick, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 6 (1996).

 E.V.Shuryak, Phys. Rev. A 54, 3151 (1996).

 H. T. C. Stoof, J. Stat. Phys. 87, 1353 (1997).

 V. M. Pérez-Garcia, H. Michinel, J. I. Cirac, M. Lewenstein, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. A 56, 1424 (1997).

 A. L. Fetter, J. Low Temp. Phys. A 106, 643 (1997).

 M. Ueda and A. J. Leggett, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1576 (1998).

 J. I. Bohn, B.D.Esry, and C. H. Greene, Phys. Rev. A 58, 584 (1998).

 E. H. Lieb and J. Yngvason, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2504 (1998).

 L. F. Lemmens, F. Brosens, and J. T. Devreese, Phys. Rev. A 59, 3112 (1999).

 M. A. Zaluska-Kotur, M. Gajda, A. Orlowski, and J. Mostowski, Phys. Rev. A 61, 033613 (2000).

 J. Tempere, F. Brosens, L. F. Lemmens, and J. T. Devreese, Phys. Rev. A 61, 043605 (2000).

 F. Calogero, J. Math. Phys. 10, 2191 (1969).

 F. Calogero, J. Math. Phys. 12, 419 (1971).

 A. Turbiner, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 13, 1473 (1998).

 J. B. McGuire, J. Math. Phys. 5, 622, (1964).

 R. L. Hall and H. R. Post, Proc. Phys. Soc (Lond.) 90, 381 (1967).

 R. L. Hall, Proc. Phys. Soc (Lond.) 91, 16 (1967).

 E. Prugovecki, Quantum Mechanics in Hilbert Space (Academic, New York, 1981).

 M. Reed and B. Simon, Methods of Modern Mathematical Physics IV: Analysis of Operators (Academic, New York, 1978).

 W. Thirring, A Course in Mathematical Physics 3: Quantum Mechanics of Atoms and Molecules (Springer, New York, 1981).

 R. L. Hall, Can. J. Phys. 50, 305 (1972).

 R. L. Hall, Aequ. Math. 8, 281 (1972).

 R. L. Hall and N. Saad, J. Phys. A 32, 133 (1999).

 A. Kratzer, Z. Physik 3, 289 (1920).

 E. Fues, Ann. Physik 80, 367 (1926).

 G. van Hooydonk, J. Mol. Struct. (Theochem) 109, 84 (1984).

 D. Secrest, J. Chem. Phys. 89, 1017 (1988).

 A. Requena, J. Zuniga, L. M. Fuentes and A. Hidolgo, J. Chem. Phys. 85, 3939 (1986).

 J. M. Frances, J. Zuifga, M. Alacid and A. Requena, J. Chem. Phys. 90, 5536 (1989).

 R. B. Judd, Angular Momentum Theory for Diatomic Molecules (New York: Academic Press,1975).

 A. de Souza Dutra, Phys. Rev. A 47, R2435 (1993).

 N. Nag, R. Roychoudhury and Y. P. Varshni, Phys. Rev. A 6, 5098 (1994).

 M. Znojil, Phys. Rev. A 51, 128 (1995).

 R. L. Hall and N. Saad, J. Chem. Phys. 109, 2983 (1998).

Figure 1.  The shapes of the two potentials studied: the harmonic oscillator with soft core, $`H=f\left(r\right)=\lambda r^2+\mu r^2,`$ and Kratzer’s potential, $`K=f\left(r\right)=\lambda r^1+\mu r^2,`$ with $`\lambda =\mu =1.`$

Figure 2.  Bounds for the energy parameter $`E(v)=/(N1)`$ of the $`N`$-boson system with pair potentials of the form $`f(r)=V_o(r^2+r^2),`$ as a function of $`v=NV_0/2.`$ The graphs show: U the upper bound $`F_G(v)`$ found by a Gaussian trial function, L the lower bound $`F_2(v)`$ by the equivalent $`2`$-body method, and ‘dashed’ the upper bound $`F_\varphi (v)`$ by collective field theory.

Figure 3.  Bounds for the energy parameter $`E(v)=/(N1)`$ of the $`N`$-boson system with pair potentials of the form $`f(r)=V_o(r^1+r^2),`$ as a function of $`v=NV_0/2.`$ The graphs show: U the upper bound $`F_G(v)`$ found by a Gaussian trial function, L the lower bound $`F_2(v)`$ by the equivalent $`2`$-body method, and ‘dashed’ the upper bound $`F_\varphi (v)`$ by collective field theory.


text:
# Dualization of non-Abelian 𝐵∧𝐹 model *footnote **footnote *Accepted for publication in Phys.Lett. B

## Abstract

We show that dualization of $`BF`$ models to Stückelberg–like massive gauge theories allows a non-Abelian extension. We obtain local Lagrangians which are straightforward extensions of the Abelian results.

Recently, we have described a procedure for dualizing Abelian $`BF`$ models of arbitrary $`p`$-forms to a gauge invariant, massive, Stückelberg-like theories . It has been shown that such dualization is a special subclass of general $`p`$–dualization formulation for interacting theories. One may naturally ask whether these models allow a non–Abelian generalization. Earlier attempts to dualize non–Abelian theories have been made within the framework of 3D-topological models and non-linear sigma models with non–Abelian isometries , . In the former case, the success was partial being subject to some fine-tuning and in both cases the resulting dual Lagrangians do not correspond to their Abelian versions. On the other hand, the interest in Stückelberg-like gauge models and $`BF`$ non-Abelian models stems form the fact that both models have been independently used as alternatives to the Higgs Mechanism for vector mass generation, , , .
In this note we shall investigate dualization of a non-Abelian extension of the $`BF`$ model, $`B`$ being a Kalb-Ramond two-index tensor field and $`F`$ being field strength of a non-Abelian vector field. With this goal in mind, and to set the proper path, we briefly review the dualization of the $`BF`$ model in the Abelian case.

The main ingredient of the dualization procedure is a parent Lagrangian  defined as

$`L_P=`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{23!}}H_{\mu \nu \rho }H^{\mu \nu \rho }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!}}ϵ^{\lambda \mu \nu \rho }C_{[\lambda }H_{\mu \nu \rho ]}`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{3!}}ϵ^{\lambda \mu \nu \rho }\left(V_\lambda _\lambda \theta \right)H_{\mu \nu \rho }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }(V)F^{\mu \nu }(V)`$ (2)
$`V_\lambda `$ is a spectator gauge field which is inert under dualization. The Stückeleberg field $`\theta `$ has been introduced to provide gauge invariance of the parent Lagrangian under transformations $`\delta V_\mu =_\mu \lambda `$, $`\delta \theta =\lambda `$, $`\delta H_{\mu \nu \rho }=0`$, $`\delta C=0`$. We shall name parent Lagrangian invariance “off-shell invariance” meaning that $`H`$ field has not been determined by its equation of motion. The conpensator will disappear from the “on-shell” Lagrangian obtained by solving the field equations for $`H`$. These equations are obtained by varying the $`C`$ field in (2), which gives

$$\frac{L_P}{C}=0_{[\lambda }H_{\mu \nu \rho ]}=0H_{\mu \nu \rho }=_{[\mu }B_{\nu \rho ]}$$
(3)
Eq.(3) gives Bianchi Identities for $`H_{\mu \nu \rho }`$ which has known solution in terms of Kalb-Ramond field strength $`H(B)`$. Thus the Lagrange multiplier $`C`$ is dualized to the tensor $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ following the same pattern as in electric/magnetic duality case. Inserting solution (3) in the parent Lagrangian (2), one finds a $`BF`$ model described by the Lagrangian

$$L_B=\frac{1}{23!}H^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}{}_{\mu \nu \rho }{}^{}(B)\frac{m}{4}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }B_{\mu \nu }_{[\rho }V_{\sigma ]}\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }(V)F^{\mu \nu }(V)$$
(4)
On the other hand, Stückelberg-like Abelian model for $`V_\lambda `$, dual to the $`BF`$ model, is obtained varying (2) with respect to $`H`$ which gives the equation of motion

$$H^{\mu \nu \rho }=ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\left[_\sigma Cm\left(V_\sigma _\sigma \theta \right)\right]$$
(5)
Re-inserting (5) in (2) one finds gauge invariant, massive Proca theory described by the Stückelberg Lagrangian

$$L_𝚽=\frac{1}{2}\left[m\left(V_\mu _\mu \theta \right)_\mu C\right]^2\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }(V)F^{\mu \nu }(V)$$
(6)
The field $`C`$ is inert under gauge transformation and one can define a new scalar field $`\overline{\theta }=m\theta +C`$, which is still a good conpensator. Thus one obtains a familiar looking Stückelberg Lagrangian

$$L_𝚽=\frac{1}{2}\left(mV_\mu _\mu \overline{\theta }\right)^2\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }(V)F^{\mu \nu }(V)$$
(7)
The legitimate question raises itself: is there a simple generalization of the above procedure in case of a non-Abelian internal symmetry, e.g. $`SU(N)`$ ?
Earlier attempts has been made in this direction  but the resulting $`BF`$ Lagrangian was found to have a non–linear kinetic term for the $`B`$ field. The reason for this non-linearity can be traced to the problem of the linear kinetic term of the $`B`$ field with respect to the Kalb–Ramond (KR) symmetry $`\delta B_{\mu \nu }=_{[\mu }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\nu ]}`$ in the non–Abelian case. To clarify the above comments, let us look at the transformations of various fields, which are

$`𝐕_\mu {}_{}{}^{}=𝐠^1𝐕_\mu 𝐠i\left(_\mu 𝐠^1\right)𝐠`$ (8)
$`𝐁_{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{}=𝐠^1𝐁_{\mu \nu }𝐠`$ (9)
where, $`𝐠`$ stands for the group element of $`SU(N)`$. The field strength of the non–Abelian Kalb–Ramond field is defined as

$$𝐇_{\mu \nu \rho }(𝐁)D_{[\mu }(𝐕)𝐁_{\nu \rho ]}=_{[\mu }𝐁_{\nu \rho ]}i[𝐕_{[\mu },𝐁_{\nu \rho ]}]$$
(10)
In addition to the usual $`SU(N)`$ Yang–Mills (YM) gauge transformations one expects an additional  KR symmetry described by the vector parameter $`𝚲_\mu `$ as §§§We use the $``$ and $``$ to denote vector and $`SU(N)`$ transformations in order to distinguish them. N.B. $``$ has nothing to do with hermiticity properties.

$`𝐕_\mu {}_{}{}^{}=𝐕_\mu `$ (11)
$`𝐁_{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{}=𝐁_{\mu \nu }+D_{[\mu }(𝐕)𝚲_{\nu ]}`$ (12)
The presence of the covariant derivative in the transformation (12) is induced by the fact that $`𝐁_{\mu \nu }`$ is a vector with respect to $`SU(N)`$, thus the parameter $`𝚲_\mu `$ also lives in the adjoint representation of $`SU(N)`$. Transformations (12) fails to be a symmetry of the non–Abelian version of the kinetic term for $`B`$ field. In fact, kinetic term transforms as

$$𝐇^{}{}_{\mu \nu \rho }{}^{}(𝐁)=𝐇_{\mu \nu \rho }(𝐁)+i[𝐅_{[\mu \nu }(𝐕),𝚲_{\rho ]}]$$
(13)
and is clearly KR non–invariant. while $`BF`$ term remains invariant since its variation under (12) reduces to the non-Abelian Bianchi Identities of $`𝐅_{\mu \nu }(𝐕)`$. One realizes that the non–Abelian extension of the $`BF`$ model introduces a Kalb–Ramond gauge non–invariance already at the level of kinetic terms, let alone mass terms. This problem has already been noticed previously  and by–passed avoiding a kinetic term for the non–Abelian Kalb–Ramond gauge field in the parent Lagrangian. The outcome of dualization was a non–linear $`B`$ interaction. We shall adopt a different approach and try to make an invariant kinetic term with respect to both KR and YM symmetry which is linear. In this way we want to maintain similarity, as much as possible, to the Abelian case previously described. In fact, a simple way to re-establish KR invariance of the kinetic term in (13) is to require

$$[𝐅_{[\mu \nu }(𝐕),𝚲_{\rho ]}]=0$$
(14)
This constraint has a solution in terms of a “flat connection$`𝐕_\mu =𝚽_\mu 𝐔^1_\mu 𝐔`$ described in terms of the group element $`U`$. Thus, the moral of the story is that a kinetic term for the $`B`$ field can be made KR invariant if the covariant derivatives are defined in terms of the flat connection $`𝚽_\mu `$ while maintaining its linear (Abelian–like) form. Thus, appropriate KR symmetry transformations are

$`𝚽_\mu {}_{}{}^{}=𝚽_\mu `$ (15)
$`𝐁_{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{}=𝐁_{\mu \nu }+D_{[\mu }(𝚽)𝚲_{\nu ]}`$ (16)
At this point, we construct a non–Abelian version of the parent Lagrangian (2)as

$`L_P=`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{23!}}Tr𝐇_{\mu \nu \rho }𝐇^{\mu \nu \rho }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!}}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }Tr𝐂D_{[\mu }(𝚽)𝐇_{\nu \rho \sigma ]}`$ (17)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{3!}}ϵ^{\lambda \mu \nu \rho }Tr𝐇_{\lambda \mu \nu }\left(𝐀_\rho 𝚽_\rho \right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}Tr𝐅_{\mu \nu }(𝐀)𝐅^{\mu \nu }(𝐀)`$ (18)
where, $`𝚽_\mu `$ is the non–Abelian version for the Abelian conpensator $`_\mu \theta `$ in (2), while the the other fields maintain their role. The non–Abelian dualization follows the previously described steps. Varying (18) with respect to $`𝐂`$ gives the solution

$$\frac{L_P}{𝐂}=0D_{[\lambda }(𝚽)𝐇_{\mu \nu \rho ]}=0𝐇_{\mu \nu \rho }=D_{[\mu }(𝚽)𝐁_{\nu \rho ]}$$
(19)
Solution (19) is the non-Abelian version of (3). One should notice that this solution exists only if $`𝚽`$ is flat, which points out the importance of such choice. In the case of an arbitrary (non-flat) connection a solution of the type (19) cannot be found due to the fact that $`[D_\mu (𝐕),D_\nu (𝐕)]=𝐅_{\mu \nu }(𝐕)0`$.
Inserting (19) into (18) gives the non–Abelian version of the $`BF`$ Lagrangian (4) as

$`L_𝐁=`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{23!}}Tr𝐇_{\mu \nu \rho }(𝐁,𝚽)𝐇^{\mu \nu \rho }(𝐁,𝚽)+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{4}}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }Tr𝐁_{\mu \nu }D_{[\rho }(𝚽)\left(𝐀𝚽\right)_{\sigma ]}`$ (20)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}Tr𝐅_{\mu \nu }(𝐀)𝐅^{\mu \nu }(𝐀)`$ (21)
where, we have kept explicitly the combination $`𝐀_\sigma 𝚽_\sigma `$ in the $`BF`$ term, following from the parent Lagrangian, in order to make evident gauge invariance of this term, although $`D_{[\rho }(𝚽)𝚽_{\sigma ]}0`$ for a flat connection.

$`𝐇_{\mu \nu \rho }(𝐁,𝚽)D_{[\mu }(𝚽)𝐁_{\nu \rho ]}=_{[\mu }𝐁_{\nu \rho ]}i[𝚽_{[\mu },𝐁_{\nu \rho ]}]`$ (22)
$`𝐅_{\mu \nu }(𝐀)D_{[\mu }(𝐀)𝐀_{\nu ]}`$ (23)
On the other hand, Varying (18) with respect to $`𝐇`$ gives the field equation

$$𝐇^{\mu \nu \rho }=ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\left[D_\sigma (𝚽)𝐂m\left(𝐀_\sigma 𝚽_\sigma \right)\right]$$
(24)
Inserting solution (24) in (18) reproduces the non–Abelian version of the Stückelberg Lagrangian (7) as

$$L=\frac{1}{4}Tr𝐅_{\mu \nu }(𝐀)𝐅^{\mu \nu }(𝐀)\frac{1}{2}Tr\left[m\left(𝐀_\mu 𝚽_\mu \right)D_\mu (𝚽)𝐂\right]^2$$
(25)
One can see from (21) and (25) the $`𝚽_\mu `$ plays the role of unique  conpensator both for the KR and YM symmetries and does not take part in the dualization process. On the other hand, it is the scalar field $`𝐂`$ which is dual to $`𝐁`$, which is a standard $`p`$–duality correspondence.

As a conclusion, we have succeeded in formulating the non–Abelian extension of the dualization procedure described in . The key of the success can be found in a formulation of the covariant derivative with respect tot he flat connection $`𝚽_\mu `$, which is the simultaneous conpensator for KR and YM symmetries. It is present in both versions of the theory and, thus, it is not dualized.


text:
# Fractal Statistics

## 1 Introduction

In a recent model Fermions, in particular the electrons have been treated as, what may be called Quantum Mechanical Kerr-Newman Black Holes (QMKMBH), a treatment that leads to a successful interpretation of several hitherto inexplicable features, both in Particle Physics and Cosmology. In the hydrodynamical formulation these QMKNBH can be considered to be vortices bounded by the Compton wavelength in a description that leads to a harmonious convergence with Nelson’s stochastic theory also (Cf.Discussion). In this picture, Bosons would be, not vortices, but rather streamlines.
In what follows, we shall show that within this framework it is possible to explain the divide between Fermi-Dirac and Bose-Einstein statistics, as also examine special situations where there would be fractal statistics, that is Bosonisation of Fermions and Fermionisation of Bosons.

## 2 Usual Statistics

We first observe that the above vortex and streamline description provides an explanation for the Fermionic and Bosonic statistics. Indeed, let $`n_K`$ be the occupation number for the energy or momentum state defined by $`K`$. For Fermions $`n_K=0`$ or $`1`$, where as $`n_K`$ can be arbitrary for Bosons. The reason is that Fermions are bounded by the Compton wavelength. That is, they are localised, a description which requires both negative and positive energy solutions, which infact is expressed by zitterbewegung effects. The localisation in space automatically implies an indeterminacy of energy or momentum $`K`$. Thus, though an energy or momentum state, in practical terms implies a small spread $`\mathrm{\Delta }K`$, it is not possible to cram Fermions which also have a momentum energy interdeterminacy spread, arbitrarily into this state.
On the other hand Bosons are not bound by the Compton wavelength vortices, and so have sharper momentum states, so that any number of them can be crammed into the state $`K`$ (which really is blurred by the Uncertainity Principle indeterminacy of $`\mathrm{\Delta }K`$). Another way of expressing these facts are by saying that the Fermionic wave function in space is weak, but not the Bosonic wave function, the latter fact being symptomatic of a field or an interaction.
The above considerations immediately follow from a recent description in terms of quantized fractal space time. In this case we have a non commutative geometry given by

$$[x,y]=0(l^2),[x,p_x]=ı\mathrm{}[1+l^2]$$
(1)
where $`l`$ is the Compton wavelength. It is precisely the space quantization at the Compton scale that leads to the Dirac matrices and their anti-commutation relations.
Bosons on the other hand would be bound states of the Fermions (Cf. and other references), or alternatively they would be a super position of vortices leading to a streamline like description.

## 3 Fractal Statistics

However there could be certain special situations in which the above space localised and momentum space localised description of Fermions and Bosons gets blurred, in which case anomalous or fractal statistics would come into play. This could happen, for example when the Compton wavelength $`l`$ of the Fermion becomes very small, that is the particle is very massive. In this case the non commutativity of the geometry referred to above in (1) disappears and we return to the usual commutation relations of non relativistic Quantum Mechanics, that is a description in terms of the spinless Schrodinger equation. Indeed in this case, $`v`$ being the velocity of the particle $`v/c`$ would be small and the Dirac equation tends to the Schrodinger equation.
There would thus be a Bosonisation effect. This would also be expected at very low temperatures, for example below the Fermi temperature, when the energy spread of the Fermions would itself be small, rather as in the case of Bosons and anomalous behaviour, for example on the lines of the superfluidity of $`He^3`$ can be expected.
For very light Fermions, for example Neutrinos, the Compton wavelength be very large, but in this case the double connectivity of the QMKNBH disappears and the observed anomalous features of the Neutrino show up, as discussed elsewhere.
Indeed with recent developments in nano technology and thin films, we are able to consider one dimensional and two dimensional Fermions, in which case, Bosonisation effects show up as discussed elsewhere. In any case in the one dimensional and two dimensional cases, the Dirac equation becomes a two component equation, without an invariant mass, while at the same time, handedness shows up. It is worth mentioning here that the Dirac matrices can have only even dimensionality, corresponding to the above anomalous two component Dirac spinors, and the usual Dirac bispinors of the three dimensional theory.
We now consider in greater detail two illustrative situations where anomalous behaviour shows up.
1. Nearly Mono Energetic Fermions (Cf.):
Our starting point is the well known formula for the occupation number of a Fermion gas

$$\overline{n}_p=\frac{1}{z^1e^{bE_p}+1}$$
(2)
where, $`z^{}\frac{\lambda ^3}{v}\mu zz`$ because, here, $`\mu 1`$ (Cf. Appendix);

$$v=\frac{V}{N},\lambda =\sqrt{\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}^2}{m/b}}$$

$$b\left(\frac{1}{KT}\right),\text{and}\overline{n}_p=N$$
(3)
Let us consider particular a collection of Fermions which is somehow made nearly mono-energetic, that is, given by the distribution,

$$n_p^{}=\delta (pp_0)\overline{n}_p$$
(4)
where $`\overline{n}_p`$ is given by (2).
This is not possible in general - here we consider a special hypothetical situation of a collection of mono-energetic particles in equilibrium which is the idealization of a contrived experimental set up. For example, the following is a mono energetic equilibrium distribution function:

$$f\alpha exp[\rho (|\stackrel{}{v}||\stackrel{}{v}_0|)^2],\rho m/2KT>>1,$$

Infact one can show that the above function is consistent with the Bolitzmann equation for a collection of particles under a uniform magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{B}`$: Infact

$$\frac{f}{t}=0,$$

while one can easily show that

$$\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}f=0,\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\stackrel{}{v}[exp[\rho (|\stackrel{}{V}||\stackrel{}{V}_0|)^2]\alpha [(|\stackrel{}{V}||\stackrel{}{V}_0|)f\stackrel{}{V}]$$

Further the force is given by

$$\stackrel{}{F}\alpha \stackrel{}{V}\times \stackrel{}{B}$$

so that the force term in the Boltzmann equation viz.,

$$\frac{\stackrel{}{F}}{m}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\stackrel{}{v}f\alpha \stackrel{}{V}\times \stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{V}=0$$

Finally
$`\frac{f}{t}=0`$ means $`\frac{dH}{dt}=0`$ that is $`(\frac{f}{t})_{coll}=0`$
Thus the above distribution function which becomes mono energetic for $`\lambda >>1`$ satisfies the Boltzmann equation (Cf.ref.); when $`\rho \mathrm{}`$ we get the above $`n_p^{}`$ in this case.
By the usual formulation we have,

$$N=\frac{V}{\mathrm{}^3}𝑑\stackrel{}{p}n_p^{}=\frac{V}{\mathrm{}^3}\delta (pp_0)4\pi p^2\overline{n}_p𝑑p=\frac{4\pi V}{\mathrm{}^3}p_0^2\frac{1}{z^1e^\theta +1}$$
(5)
where $`\theta bE_{p_0}`$.
It must be noted that in (5) there is a loss of dimension in momentum space, due to the $`\delta `$ function in (4) - infact such a fractal two dimensional situation would in the relativistic case lead us back to the anomalous behaviour already alluded to. In the non relativistic case two dimensions would imply that the coordinate $`\psi `$ of the spherical polar coordinates $`(r,\psi ,\varphi )`$ would become constant, $`\pi /2`$ infact. In this case the usual Quantum numbers $`l`$ and $`m`$ of the spherical harmonics no longer play a role in the usual radial wave equation

$$\frac{d^2u}{dr^2}+\left\{\frac{2m}{\mathrm{}^2}[EV(r)]\frac{l(l+1)}{r^2}\right\}u=0,$$
(6)
The coefficient of the centrifugal term $`l(l+1)`$ in (6) is replaced by $`m^2`$ as in Classical Theory.
To proceed, in this case, $`KT=<E_p>E_{p)}`$, so that, $`\theta 1`$. But we can continue without giving $`\theta `$ any specific value.
Using the expressions for $`v`$ and $`z`$ given in (3) in (4), we get

$$(z^1e^\theta +1)=(4\pi )^{5/2}\frac{z^{}_{}{}^{}1}{p_0};\text{whence}$$

$$z^{}_{}{}^{}1Az^{}_{}{}^{}1\left(\frac{(4\pi )^{5/2}}{p_0}e^\theta \right)=1,$$
(7)
where we use the fact that in (3), $`\mu 1`$ (Cf.Appendix).
A number of conclusions can be drawn from (7). For example, if,

$$A1,i.e.,$$

$$p_0\frac{(4\pi )^{5/2}}{1+e}$$
(8)
where $`A`$ is given in (7), then $`z^{}1`$. Remembering that in (3), $`\lambda `$ is of the order of the de Broglie wave length and $`v`$ is the average volume occupied per particle, this means that the gas gets very densely packed for momenta given by (8). Infact for a Bose gas, as is well known, this is the condition for Bose-Einstein condensation at the level $`p=0`$ (cf.ref.).
On the other hand, if,

$$A0(\text{that}\text{is}\frac{(4\pi )^{5/2}}{e}p_0)$$

then $`z^{}0`$. That is, the gas becomes dilute, or $`V`$ increases.
More generally, Equation (7) also puts a restriction on the energy (or momentum), because $`z^{}>0`$, viz.,

$$A>0(i.e.p_0<\frac{(4\pi )^{5/2}}{e})$$

$$\text{But \hspace{1em}if}A<0,(i.e.p_0>\frac{(4\pi )^{5/2}}{e})$$

then there is an apparent contradiction.
The contradiction disappears if we realize that $`A0`$, or

$$p_0=\frac{(4\pi )^{5/2}}{e}$$
(9)
(corresponding to a temperature given by $`KT=\frac{p_0^2}{2m}`$) is a threshold momentum (phase transition). For momenta greater than the threshold given by (9), the collection of Fermions behaves like Bosons. In this case, the occupation number is given by

$$\overline{n}_p=\frac{1}{z^1e^{bE_p}1},$$

instead of (2), and the right side equation of (7) would be given by $`{}_{}{}^{}1^{}`$ instead of $`+1`$, so that there would be no contradiction. Thus in this case there is an anomalous behaviour of the Fermions.
The Bosonic behaviour of Fermions can be understood in a simple way from a different standpoint. Let us consider the case described before equation (5), of a collection of Fermions with $`m>>1`$, and consequently all having nearly the same momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}`$. In this case, it is possible to choose a Lorentz frame in which all the particles are nearly at rest, i.e.,$`v/c0`$. As mentioned, it is known that the Dirac equation describing spin $`1/2`$ particles goes over into the Schrodinger equation describing spinless particles. Effectively, we have a collection of Bosons.
2. Degenerate Bosons:
We could consider a similar situation for Bosons also (Cf. where an equation like (4) holds. In this case we have equations like (8) and (9):

$$p_0\frac{(4\pi )^{5/2}}{1.4e1}$$
(10)
$$p_0\frac{(4\pi )^{5/2}}{e}$$
(11)
((11) is the same as (9), quite expectedly). At the momentum given by (10) we have a densely packed Boson gas rather as in the case of Bose Einstein condensation. On the other hand at the momentum given by (11) we have infinite dilution, while at lower momenta than in (11) there is an anomalous Fermionisation.
Finally it may be pointed out that at very high temperatures, once again the energy - momentum spread of a Bosonic gas becomes large, and Fermionisation can be expected, as in indeed has been shown elsewhere. In any case at these very high temperatures, we approach the Classical Maxwell Boltzmann situation.

## 4 Discussion

1. It was mentioned in Section 1 that in the QMKNBH description there is a reconciliation between Nelson’s stochastic theory and the Bohm-Hydrodynamical approach, once it is realized that the diffusion constant of Nelson’s theory is related to the Compton wavelength, and that the non local Bohm potential gives the energy of the particle (Cf. for details). Infact in the Nelsonian theory, space time is a non differenciable manifold, there being a Double Weiner process which leads to the usual solinoidal velocity given by $`\stackrel{}{v}=\frac{\stackrel{}{}S}{m}`$ as also an osmotic velocity given by $`\stackrel{}{u}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2m}\frac{\stackrel{}{}R}{R}`$ where the Quantum Mechanical wave function $`\psi =Re^\frac{ı}{\mathrm{}}S.`$ We get identical expressions in the Bohm-hydrodynamical approach also. Indeed if there were no double Weiner process, then in the Nelsonian theory $`\stackrel{}{u}`$ would vanish and so would $`^2R`$ and $`Q`$, that is the Compton wavelength vortex and the mass and the energy of the particle would both disappear.
2. Interestingly in the QMKNBH-Hydrodynamical vortex picture as in the usual Quantum Theory of addition of angular momentum, we can recover the fact that the sum or bound state of two such vortices or spin half particles would indeed give Bosons.
This can be seen as follows, from the theory of vortices. The velocity distribution is given by

$$v=\mathrm{\Gamma }/2\pi r$$
(12)
In the case of the QMKNBH vortex we have to use in (12) $`v=c\text{and}r=\mathrm{}/2mc`$, the Compton wavelength of the particle. So we have $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{h}{m}`$ which is also the diffusion constant of Nelsonian Theory.
If we consider two parallel spinning vortices separated by a distance $`d`$, then the angular velocity is given by

$$\omega =\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\pi d^2}$$

whence the spin of the system turns out to be $`h`$, that is in usual units the spin is (1), wth states $`\pm 1`$.
There is also the case where the two above vortices are anti parallel. In this case there is no spin, but rather there is the linear velocity given by

$$v=\mathrm{\Gamma }/2\pi d$$

This corresponds to the spin $`1`$ case with state $`0`$.
Together, the two above cases give the $`3,1,0,+1`$ states of spin $`1`$ as in the Quantum Mechanical Theory.
It must be noteed that the distance $`d`$ between vortices could be much greater than the Compton wavelength scale, so that the wave function of the Boson in the above description would be extended in space in comparison to the Fermionic wave function, as pointed out in the text.