text:
# References

UOSTP-00-106

hep-th/0008204

Exact Solutions of Multi-Vortices and False Vacuum Bubbles

in Noncommutative Abelian-Higgs Theories

Dongsu Bak***Electronic Mail: dsbak@mach.uos.ac.kr

Physics Department, University of Seoul, Seoul 130-743 Korea

> We consider the noncommutative Abelian-Higgs theory and construct new type of exact multi-vortex solutions that solve the static equations of motion. They in general do not follow from the BPS equations; only for some specific values of parameters, they satisfy the BPS equations saturating the Bogomol’nyi bound. We further consider the Abelian-Higgs theory with more complicated scalar potential allowing unstable minima and construct exact solutions of noncommutative false vacuum bubble with integer magnetic flux. The classical stability of the solutions is discussed.

The ordinary Abelian-Higgs theory possesses all the essential ingredients leading to the spontaneous symmetry breaking via the condensation of the scalar field, serving as a model for superconductivity. The Maxwell field as well as the Higgs field become massive and magnetic fluxes are confined. The theory allows the topological vortex solution carrying $`m`$ unit magnetic fluxes. Especially in the critical case, there exist static multi-vortex solutions saturating the BPS bound. However, until now, no closed form vortex solutions are found in this theory. Recently, some aspects of the Nielsen-Olesen vortices in the noncommutative Abelian-Higgs theory have been investigated via the BPS equations and related works have appeared.

In this letter, we shall consider the noncommutative Abelian-Higgs model. (The gauge symmetry is in fact non-Abelian due to the noncommutative nature of the theory.) Our key finding is new types of exact multi-vortex solutions. When the mass parameter of the Higgs field takes a certain value, these solutions saturate the BPS bound and the classical stability is guaranteed in this case. We discuss the detailed characteristics of the vortex solutions mainly focused on the static properties. In particular, the gauge fields arising here give localized integer-valued fluxes, which are also static solutions of the noncommutative Maxwell theory.

We further consider the Abelian-Higgs theory with more complicated scalar potential allowing unstable minima and construct exact solutions of noncommutative false vacuum bubble with integer magnetic flux. We close our discussion by mentioning related higher dimensional solutions and possible applications.

Vortices in Noncommutative Abelian-Higgs Theory:  We shall begin with the noncommutative Abelian-Higgs model in 2+1 dimensions described by

$$L=\frac{1}{g^2}d^2x\left(\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+D_\mu \varphi (D^\mu \varphi )^{}+\frac{\lambda }{2}(\varphi \varphi ^{}v^2)^2\right)$$
(1)
where

$`F_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu i(A_\mu A_\nu A_\nu A_\mu )`$
$`D_\mu \varphi `$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \varphi iA_\mu \varphi ,`$ (2)
and our metric convention is $`\eta _{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1)`$. Here the $``$-product is defined by

$$f(x)g(x)\left(e^{i\frac{\theta }{2}ϵ^{ij}_i_j^{}}f(x)g(x^{})\right)|_{x=x^{}},$$
(3)
where we take $`\theta `$ to be positive without loss of generality. The theory can be equivalently presented by operators on the Hilbert space defined by

$`[\widehat{x},\widehat{y}]=i\theta `$ (4)
where the $``$-product between functions becomes the ordinary product between the operators. For given function

$`f(x,y)={\displaystyle \frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}\stackrel{~}{f}(k)e^{i(k_xx+k_yy)}},`$ (5)
the corresponding operator can be found by the Weyl-ordered form of

$`\widehat{f}(\widehat{x},\widehat{y})={\displaystyle \frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}\stackrel{~}{f}(k)e^{i(k_x\widehat{x}+k_y\widehat{y})}}.`$ (6)
One may then easily show that $`d^2xf`$ is replaced by $`2\pi \theta \mathrm{tr}\widehat{f}`$ and $`_if`$ corresponds to $`\frac{i}{\theta }ϵ_{ij}[\widehat{x}_j,\widehat{f}]`$. With the operator-valued fields, the action can be written as

$$L=\frac{2\pi \theta }{g^2}\mathrm{tr}[\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+D_\mu \varphi (D^\mu \varphi )^{}+\frac{\lambda }{2}(\varphi \varphi ^{}v^2)^2]$$
(7)
where hats are dropped for simplicity and the derivative notation is understood as $`_if\frac{i}{\theta }ϵ_{ij}[x_j,f]`$. The system is invariant under the gauge transformation,

$`A_\mu ^{}=U^{}A_\mu U+iU^{}_\mu U,\varphi ^{}=U^{}\varphi ,`$ (8)
where the gauge group element $`U`$ satisfies

$`U^{}U=UU^{}=I.`$ (9)
Using the translational invariance of the system, the Hamiltonian can be constructed as

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \theta }{g^2}}\mathrm{tr}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(E^2+B^2)+D_t\varphi (D_t\varphi )^{}+D_i\varphi (D_i\varphi )^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}(\varphi \varphi ^{}v^2)^2],`$ (10)
and the static equations of motion read

$`D_iD_i\varphi \lambda (\varphi \varphi ^{}v^2)\varphi =0,`$
$`ϵ_{ij}D_jB=J_ii[\varphi (D_i\varphi )^{}D_i\varphi \varphi ^{}],`$ (11)
where we use the gauge $`A_0=0`$ and set $`_t=0`$. Here the magnetic field transforms, under the gauge transformation, covariantly as $`B^{}=U^{}BU`$ and the covariant derivative on an adjoint field $`H`$ is understood as $`D_\mu H=_\mu Hi[A_\mu ,H]`$. Let us introduce the creation and annihilation operators by $`c^{}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\theta }}(x+iy)`$ and by $`c\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\theta }}(xiy)`$, which satisfy $`[c,c^{}]=1`$. To represent arbitrary operators in the Hilbert space we shall use the occupation number basis by $`G=g_{mn}|mn|`$ with the number operator $`\widehat{n}=c^{}c`$. We will further denote $`A=A_xiA_y`$, $`_{}G(_xi_y)G=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{\theta }}[c,G]`$ and $`_+G(_x+i_y)G=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{\theta }}[c^{},G]`$.

We first present a unit flux static solution, where the flux is defined by $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\theta \mathrm{tr}B`$. (This corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{1}{2\pi }d^2xB`$ when translated back to the language of ordinary functions.) The unit flux solution is

$`\varphi =v{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}|n+1n|,`$
$`A={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{i\sqrt{\theta }}}\left(c{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\widehat{n}}}{\sqrt{\widehat{n}+1}}}c\right)={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{i\sqrt{\theta }}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(\sqrt{n+1}\sqrt{n})|nn+1|.`$ (12)
It is simple to check that

$`B={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\theta }}|00|,`$ (13)
with which $`\mathrm{\Phi }=1`$. Furthermore $`D_\pm \varphi =0`$ and $`D_\pm B=0`$, so the second equation of motion in (11) is satisfied. Using $`D^2\varphi =D_{}D_+\varphi B\varphi `$, one may show that $`D^2\varphi =0`$ and $`(\varphi \varphi ^{}v^2)\varphi =0`$, so the first equation in (11) is also fulfilled.

The flux number of solution corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Phi }=1`$. Thus the solution describes a static localized vortex. Since $`|nn|`$ is invariant under rotation, our solution is axially symmetric. (Note here that $`|nn|`$ is mapped to the function $`2(1)^nL_n(\frac{2r^2}{\theta })e^{\frac{r^2}{\theta }}`$ where $`L_n(z)`$ is the n-th order Laguerre polynomial.) By evaluating the Hamiltonian, one finds that the energy of the solution is

$`E_{\mathrm{one}}(v,\theta )={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{g^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\theta }}+\lambda \theta v^4\right){\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{g^2}}\sqrt{\lambda }v^2.`$ (14)
When $`\lambda =1`$, the theory allows so called Bogomol’nyi bound as discussed in Ref. . In fact it is straightforward to verify that the energy functional can be expressed as a complete squared form plus a topological term by

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{\pi \theta }{g^2}}\mathrm{tr}[(B+(\varphi \varphi ^{}1))^2+2(D_+\varphi )(D_+\varphi )^{}+ϵ_{ij}D_iJ_j+2v^2B]{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi v^2}{g^2}}\mathrm{\Phi },`$ (15)
where we omitted the kinetic terms involving $`E_i`$ and $`D_t\varphi `$. The saturation of the bound occurs once the Bogomol’nyi equations,

$`D_+\varphi =0,B=1\varphi \varphi ^{},`$ (16)
are satisfied. When $`\lambda =1`$, the bound in (14) agrees with the Bogomol’nyi bound that is an absolute energy bound for one vortex solution. Hence when $`v^2=\frac{1}{\theta }`$ and $`\lambda =1`$, the solution should be a BPS solution. Indeed for the specific value of $`v`$, one can check that the solution satisfies the BPS equations. This BPS solution is clearly stable because they saturate the energy bound set by the topological quantity. For $`\lambda 1`$ or $`v^2\frac{1}{\theta }`$, it is not clear at this point whether these solutions are classically stable or not. For generic $`\lambda `$, the saturation of the bound in (14) can be achieved when $`v^2=1/(\sqrt{\lambda }\theta )`$, whose physical implications are again not clear.

There are some physically equivalent configurations connected by gauge transformations. For example, $`B=\frac{1}{\theta }|kk|`$ solution with $`k>0`$ can be obtained by the gauge transformation with

$`U=1|kk||00|+|k0|+|0k|.`$ (17)
Also rather simple extension of above solution comes from the translational invariance of the system. Our solution describes a vortex located at the origin and the explicit form of vortex at $`(a_x,a_y)`$, can be constructed with help of the translation generators $`T_i=\frac{1}{\theta }ϵ_{ij}[x_j,]`$. For the above solution or solutions below, they will be just given as $`A^{}=e^{ia_iT_i}A`$ and $`\varphi ^{}=e^{ia_iT_i}\varphi `$.

We now turn to the case of $`\mathrm{\Phi }=m(m1,mZ)`$ vortex solutions. The solutions read

$`\varphi =v{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}|n+mn|,`$
$`A={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{i\sqrt{\theta }}}\left(cK_m{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\widehat{n}m+1}}{\sqrt{\widehat{n}+1}}}K_mc\right)={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{i\sqrt{\theta }}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\sqrt{n+1}\left(|nn+1||n+mn+m+1|\right),`$ (18)
where the operator $`K_m`$ denotes the projection operator $`1_{n=0}^{m1}|nn|`$. Similar to the case of one vortex, the static equations of motion can be checked explicitly. Especially, they again satisfy $`D_\pm \varphi =0`$ and the magnetic field $`B`$ is given by

$`B={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{m1}{}}}|nn|.`$ (19)
Thus the solution carries the vortex number $`\mathrm{\Phi }=m`$. The energy for the solution is evaluated as

$`E_m=mE_{\mathrm{one}}.`$ (20)
The saturation of the Bogomol’nyi bound occurs at $`v^2=\frac{1}{\theta }`$ with $`\lambda =1`$ and, for these values of parameters, one may check that the solutions satisfy the BPS equations.

Interestingly, the above gauge field $`A`$ is also static solution of the pure gauge theory, where the static equation reads $`D_iB=0`$. We note that the magnetic field of the solution is well localized with a size of order $`\sqrt{\theta }`$. This kind of localized pure magnetic solutions cannot be static in the ordinary pure U(1) theory. This is because nothing prevents the magnetic field from spreading out, which will result in a configuration of the lower energy in the ordinary U(1) Maxwell theory.

A few comments are in order. First of all, these multi-vortex solutions are static. For the case when the Bogomol’nyi bound is saturated, the existence of static vortex solution has clear physical reasons. In the commutative case, there is of course no long range interactions because the Higgs and photons become massive by the Higgs mechanism. However, the vortices even may overlap completely and, hence, the cancellation of short-ranged interaction is necessary in order to have static configurations. When the BPS equations are satisfied, the forces between the vortices cancel out indeed. Namely, when we have vortices, there is in general current circulating around the vorticities. Because there is also local magnetic field, these combine to give local Lorenz force density. Also there is force contribution from Higgs gradient and the Higgs potential. These contributions should be canceled whenever we have a static configuration of vortices. The BPS equations may be regarded as such conditions that guarantee the cancellation of the local force density. In case of the static noncommutative multi-vortex, the current density $`J_i`$ is zero and, also, the contributions from the Higgs gradient and potential vanish since $`(D_i\varphi )\varphi ^{}=0`$ and $`(\varphi \varphi ^{}1)\varphi =0`$. Hence the existence of the static multi-vortex solutions indeed relies upon vanishing of local force densities. Secondly, one may alternatively consider the theory with $`V=\frac{\lambda }{2}\mathrm{tr}(\varphi ^{}\varphi v^2)^2`$, witch is still gauge invariant. It is then simple to show that the solution above solves again this new theory. However the energy will become different. This is due to the fact that $`\mathrm{tr}(\varphi ^{}\varphi v^2)^2\mathrm{tr}(\varphi \varphi ^{}v^2)^2`$ in general. Thirdly we can check explicitly that the topological number $`\mathrm{\Phi }(=m)`$ of the multi-vortex agrees with the index

$`I\mathrm{dim}[\mathrm{ker}\varphi ^{}]\mathrm{dim}[\mathrm{ker}\varphi ]`$ (21)
on our solutions.

Noncommutative False Vacuum Bubble with Magnetic Flux:  Recently, the localized vacuum bubble solitons are found in noncommutative field theories. They are localized false vacuum bubble of the relevant theory, where the noncommutativity of coordinates prevents its collapse to a zero size as dictated the uncertainty relation $`\mathrm{\Delta }x\mathrm{\Delta }y\theta `$. Thus the bubble has a size of order $`\theta `$ and, outside of false vacuum region of core, the field configuration approaches to its stable minimum. Until now, no closed form solutions are found for finite $`\theta `$.

We shall present similar false vacuum bubble solutions in the Abelian-Higgs model with $`m`$ magnetic flux. To have false vacuum bubbles, we consider the system in (7) but with more general potentials of the form $`\frac{2\pi \theta }{g^2}V(\xi )`$ with $`\xi \varphi \varphi ^{}`$ that is consistent with the gauge symmetry. We further assume that the true minima of potential are located at $`\xi =0`$ with $`V(0)=0`$ and there is at least one other local minimum. The static equations of motions are given by

$`D_iD_i\varphi V^{}(\varphi \varphi ^{})\varphi =0,`$ (22)
with $`ϵ_{ij}D_jB=J_i`$ that is the same as before. The static solutions with $`m(1)`$ magnetic flux are given by

$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _0|00|,`$
$`A`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{\theta }}}\left(ce^{i\nu }K_m{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\widehat{n}m+1}}{\sqrt{\widehat{n}+1}}}K_mc\right),`$ (23)
where $`\nu `$ is real constant and $`\varphi _0`$ is determined by an algebraic equation by

$`1+\theta V^{}(\xi _0)=0.`$ (24)
with $`\xi _0=|\varphi _0|^2`$. To show that they are indeed satisfying the equations of motion, we note that $`B=_{n=0}^{m1}|nn|`$, $`D_+\varphi =0`$ and $`D_{}\varphi =\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{\theta }}\varphi _0|01|`$. Because $`(D_{}\varphi )\varphi ^{}=0`$, and $`J_i=D_iB=0`$. The equation of motion in (22) leads to the condition of (24). The flux number is $`\mathrm{\Phi }=m`$ and the energy is given by

$`E={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{g^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{2\theta }}+\xi _0+\theta V(\xi _0)\right).`$ (25)
When $`\theta `$ is large enough, the values of $`\xi _0`$ satisfying the condition is given by the extremum of the potential, which is expected from the analysis of Ref.  for the scalar noncommutative solitons. Also the leading term of energy in the large $`\theta `$ limit is again consistent with the analysis given in Ref. .

Although one may consider more general potentials easily, we illustrate further properties of the solutions with

$`V(\xi )=\beta [2\xi ^33(a+b)\xi ^2+6ab\xi ],`$ (26)
where we take $`b>a>0`$. Noting $`V^{}(\xi )=6\beta (\xi a)(\xi b)`$. The condition (24) becomes now $`1+6\theta \beta (\xi a)(\xi b)=0`$. Hence when $`\theta \mathrm{}`$, the solutions are $`|\varphi _0|^2=a,b`$. Here $`a`$ corresponds to the classically unstable soliton, while $`b`$ gives a classically stable one. For general $`\theta `$, the solutions read

$`2\xi _0^\pm =a+b\pm \sqrt{(ba)^2{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3\theta \beta }}}`$ (27)
for $`(ba)^2\frac{2}{3\theta \beta }0`$. Otherwise, there are no solutions satisfying the condition. The branch $`\xi _0^{}`$ is classically unstable because it maximizes the energy in (25).

Finally, one may find more general solutions as follows. Let us consider the Higgs and gauge fields of the form,

$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{m1}{}}}\varphi _k|kk|,`$
$`A`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{\theta }}}\left(ce^{i\nu }K_m{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\widehat{n}m+1}}{\sqrt{\widehat{n}+1}}}K_mc\right).`$ (28)
The static equations of motion (22) are then reduced to

$`J_+={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{i\sqrt{\theta }}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{m2}{}}}\left[\varphi _{k+1}\varphi _k^{}|k+1k|\varphi _k\varphi _{k+1}^{}|kk+1|\right]=0,`$
$`\left[2k+1+\theta V^{}(\xi _k)\right]\xi _k=0,`$ (29)
where $`J_+J_1+iJ_2`$ and $`\xi _k=|\varphi _k|^2`$. The first equation implies that $`\varphi _k\varphi _{k+1}^{}=0`$ for all $`k`$. Namely, for any given nonvanishing $`\varphi _k`$, the neighboring elements, $`\varphi _{k\pm 1}`$ ought to be zero. The second equation is again purely algebraic and can be solved once the explicit form of the potential is given.

In this note, we construct exact multi-vortex solutions of the noncommutative Abelian Higgs theory. Further considering the Abelian-Higgs theory with more complicated scalar potential, we find static false vacuum bubble solutions with $`m`$ magnetic flux. The mechanism behind the existence of such a static multi-vortex solution is not fully identified. Hence the way we get the solutions was not quite systematic. In this respect, it is not clear whether we have obtained full category of such solutions. This requires further study.

Not to mention, the low energy moduli dynamics of our multi-solitons will be particularly of interest. Similar multi-vortex solutions are also expected in the noncommutative version of the nonrelativistic scalar theory or the relativistic gauge theory coupled to Chern-Simons gauge theory and a work is in progress. It is also quite obvious that, $`D+1`$ dimensional Abelian-Higgs type theory, trivial embedding of our solutions will give extended objects of dimension $`D2`$. Our solutions would also be relevant to understanding the tachyon condensation in string theory.

Note added: The detailed stability analysis of the pure flux solutions in the U(1) Maxwell theory has recently appeared in . In this paper, it is shown that there are tachyonic modes in their fluctuation spectra.

Acknowledgment This work is supported in part by KOSEF 1998 Interdisciplinary Research Grant 98-07-02-07-01-5. We like to thank the enlightening discussions with K. Lee and J. H. Yee. We also would like to thank the hospitality of YVRC at Yonsei University where part of this work is done.


format: text

text:
# P-Loop Oscillator on Clifford Manifolds and Black Hole Entropy

## 1 Introduction

Recently a new relativity was introduced  - with a purpose to develop a viable physical theory describing the quantum ”reality” without introducing by hand a priori existing background. This theory is based upon $`3`$ main concepts:

1) Chew’s bootstrap idea about how every $`p`$-brane is made of $`all`$ the others and how an evolving physical system is able to generate its own background in the process.

2) Nottale’s scale relativity - which adopts the Planck scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1.62\times 10^{35}m`$ as the minimum attainable scale in nature.

3) a generalization of the ordinary space-time ( the concept most important for our analysis) by introduction of non-commutative C-spaces leading to full covariance of a quantum mechanical loop equation. This is achieved by extending the concepts of ordinary space-time vectors and tensors to noncommutative Clifford manifolds (it explains the name C-space) where all $`p`$-branes are unified on the basis of Clifford multivectors. As a result, there exists a one-to-one correspondence between single lines in Clifford manifolds and a nested hierarchy of $`0`$-loop, $`1`$-loop,…, $`p`$-loop histories in $`D`$ dimensions ( $`D`$=$`p1`$) encoded in terms of hypermatrices.

The respective master action functional $`S\{\mathrm{\Psi }[X(\mathrm{\Sigma })]\}`$ of quantum field theory in C-space  is

$$\begin{array}{c}S\{\mathrm{\Psi }[X(\mathrm{\Sigma })]\}=[DX(\mathrm{\Sigma })][\frac{1}{2}(\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Psi }}{\delta X}\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Psi }}{\delta X}+^2\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi })+\frac{g_3}{3!}\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }+\\ \\ \frac{g_4}{4!}\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }].\end{array}$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is an invariant evolution parameter (a generalization of the proper time in special relativity) such that

$$\begin{array}{c}(d\mathrm{\Sigma })^2=(d\mathrm{\Omega }_{p+1})^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2p}(dx_\mu dx^\mu )+\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2(p1)}d\sigma _{\mu \nu }d\sigma ^{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{}\hfill \\ +(d\sigma _{\mu _1\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _{p+1}}d\sigma ^{\mu _1\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _{p+1}})\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
$$X(\mathrm{\Sigma })=\mathrm{\Omega }_{p+1}I+\mathrm{\Lambda }^px_\mu \gamma ^\mu +\mathrm{\Lambda }^{p1}\sigma _{\mu \nu }\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu +\mathrm{}$$
(3)
is a Clifford algebra-valued line ”living” on the Clifford manifold outside space-time, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the Planck scale that allows to combine objects of different dimensionality in Eqs.(2,3) and the multivector $`X`$ Eq.(3) incorporates both a point history given by the ordinary ( vector) coordinates $`x_\mu `$ and the holographic projections of the nested family of all $`p`$-loop histories onto the embedding coordinate spacetime hyperplanes : $`\sigma _{\mu \nu },\mathrm{}.\sigma _{\mu _1\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _{p+1}}`$. The scalar ( from the point of view of ordinary Lorentz transformations but $`not`$ from the C-space point of view ) $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{p+1}`$ is the invariant proper $`p+1=D`$-volume associated with a motion of a maximum dimension $`p`$-loop across the $`p+1=D`$-dim target spacetime. Since a Cliffordian multivector with $`D`$ basis elements ( say, $`e_1,e_2,\mathrm{},e_D`$) has $`2^D`$ components, our vector $`X`$ has also $`2^D`$ components.

Generally speaking, action (1) generates a master Cantorian (strongly fractal) field theory with a braided Hopf quantum Clifford algebra. This action is unique in a sense that the above algebra selects terms allowed by the action. The quadratic terms are the usual kinetic and mass squared contributions; the cubic terms are the vertex interactions; the quartic terms are the braided scattering of four Clifford lines. In what follows we restrict our attention to a truncated version of the theory by applying it to a linear $`p`$-loop oscillator.

This truncation is characterized by the following $`3`$ simplifications. First, we dropped nonlinear terms in the action, that is the cubic term ( corresponding to vertices) and the quartic (braided scattering) term. Secondly, we freeze all the holographic modes and keep only the zero modes which would yield conventional differential equations instead of functional ones. Thirdly, we assume that the metric in C-space is flat.

## 2 Linear Non-Relativistic p-loop Oscillator

We begin this section by properly defining what one means by ”relativistic” from the point of view of the new relativity. The complete theory is the master field theory whose action functional admits a noncommutative braided quantum Clifford algebra. As a result of the postulated simplifications, we are performing a reduction of the field theory to an ordinary quantum mechanical theory. It must be kept in mind that fields are $`not`$ quantized wave functions. For this reason the wave equations that we will be working with refer to a nonrelativistic theory in C-spaces.

Hence, using all these restrictive assumptions, we obtain from the action (1) a C-space p-loop wave equation for a linear oscillator

$$\begin{array}{c}\{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{p1}}[\frac{^2}{x_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}+\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\frac{^2}{(\sigma _{\mu \nu })^2}+\mathrm{\Lambda }^4\frac{^2}{(\sigma _{\mu \nu \rho })^2}+\mathrm{}+\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2p}\frac{^2}{(\mathrm{\Omega }_{p+1})^2}]+\hfill \\ \\ \frac{m_{p+1}}{2}\frac{1}{L^2}[\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2p}x{}_{\mu }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2p2}\sigma _{\mu \nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\mathrm{}+\mathrm{\Omega }_{p+1}^2]\}\mathrm{\Psi }=T\mathrm{\Psi }\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
where $`\frac{^2}{(x_\mu )^2}=g^{\mu \nu }\frac{}{x^\mu }\frac{}{x^\nu },\frac{^2}{(\sigma _{\mu \nu })^2}=G^{\mu \nu \rho \tau }\frac{}{\sigma ^{\mu \nu }}\frac{}{\sigma ^{\rho \tau }},\mathrm{},etc,`$ $`G^{\mu \nu \rho \tau }`$ is some suitably symmetrized product of the two ordinary metric-tensors $`g^{\mu \nu }g^{\rho \tau }`$, $`T`$ is tension of the spacetime-filling $`p`$-brane, $`D=p+1`$, $`m_{p+1}`$ is the parameter of dimension $`(mass)^{p+1}`$ , parameter $`L`$ (to be defined later) has dimension $`length^{p+1}`$ and we use units $`\mathrm{}=1,c=1`$. A generalized correspondence principle 111In the limit of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/a0`$ volume $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{p+1}`$, holographic coordinates $`\sigma _{\mu \nu },\sigma _{\mu \nu \rho },\mathrm{}0`$, and $`p`$-loop oscillator should become a point oscillator, that is $`p`$-loop histories collapse to a point history allows us to introduce the following qualitative correspondence between the parameters $`m_{p+1},L`$, and mass $`m`$ and amplitude $`a`$ of a point (particle) oscillator:

$`m_{p+1}(\mathrm{"}mass\mathrm{"})m`$,

$`L(\mathrm{"}amplitude\mathrm{"})a`$

We rewrite Eq.(4) in the dimensionless form as follows

$$\{\frac{^2}{\stackrel{~}{x}_\mu ^2}+\frac{^2}{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{\mu \nu }^2}+\mathrm{}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^2+\stackrel{~}{x}_\mu ^2+\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{\mu \nu }^2+\mathrm{})+2𝒯\}\mathrm{\Psi }=0$$
(5)
where $`𝒯=(T/\sqrt{𝒜}m_{p+1})`$ is the dimensionless tension and $`𝒜`$ is a scaling parameter that will be determined below.

$`\stackrel{~}{x}_\mu =𝒜^{1/4}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^p}{L}x_\mu ,\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{\mu \nu }=𝒜^{1/4}\sigma _{\mu \nu }\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{p1}}{L},\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{p+1}=𝒜^{1/4}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{p+1}}{L}`$

are the dimensionless arguments, $`\stackrel{~}{x}_\mu `$ has $`C_{D}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}D`$ components, $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{\mu \nu }`$ has $`C_{D}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\frac{D!}{(D2)!2!}`$ components, etc.

Inserting the usual Gaussian solution for the ground state into the wave equation (4) we get the value of $`𝒜`$ :

$`𝒜m_{p+1}L^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^{p+1}`$

Without any loss of generality we can set $`𝒜=1`$ by absorbing it into $`L`$. This will give the following geometric mean relation between the parameters $`L,m_{p+1}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$

$$L^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{p+1}/m_{p+1}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{p+1}<L<\frac{1}{m_{p+1}}$$

meaning that there are three scaling regimes. The scale represented by generalized Compton wavelength $`(1/m_{p+1})^{(1/p+1)}`$ will signal a transition from a smooth continuum to a $`fractal`$ ( but continuous ) geometry. The scale $`L`$ will signal both a $`discrete`$ and $`fractal`$ world ( like El Naschie’s Cantorian-fractal spacetime models and $`p`$-adic quantum mechanics ) and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ the quantum gravitational regime.

The dimensionless coordinates then become

$`\stackrel{~}{x}_\mu =\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{p+1}m_{p+1}}x_\mu /\mathrm{\Lambda },\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{\mu \nu }=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{p+1}m_{p+1}}\sigma _{\mu \nu }/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2,\mathrm{},`$

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{p+1}=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{p+1}m_{p+1}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{p+1}/\mathrm{\Lambda }^{p+1}`$

The dimensionless combination $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{p+1}m_{p+1}`$ indicating existence of two separate scales : $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`(1/m_{p+1})^{\frac{1}{p+1}}`$ obeys the following double inequality:

$$\sqrt{m_{p+1}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{p+1}}<1<\sqrt{\frac{1}{m_{p+1}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{p+1}}}$$
(6)
Relations (6) define two asymptotic regions:

1)the ”discrete-fractal” region characterized by $`m_{p+1}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{p+1}1`$, or the Planck scale regime, and

2)the ”fractal/smooth phase transition ”, or the low energy region characterized by $`m_{p+1}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{p+1}<<1`$.

Since the wave equation (5) is diagonal in its arguments ( it is separable ) we

represent its solution as a product of separate functions of each of the dimensionless arguments $`\stackrel{~}{x}_\mu ,\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{\mu \nu },\mathrm{},`$

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\underset{i}{}F_i(\stackrel{~}{x}_i)\underset{j<k}{}F_{jk}(\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{jk})\mathrm{}$$
(7)
Inserting (7) into (5) we get for each of these functions the Whittaker equation:

$$Z^{\prime \prime }(2𝒯\stackrel{~}{y}^2)Z=0$$
(8)
where $`Z`$ is any function $`F_i,F_{ij},\mathrm{}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{y}`$ is the respective dimensionless variable $`\stackrel{~}{x}_\mu `$,$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{\mu \nu },\mathrm{}`$, and there are all in all $`2^D`$ such equations. The bounded solution of (8) is expressed in terms of the Hermite polynomials $`H_n(\stackrel{~}{y})`$

$$Ze^{\stackrel{~}{y}^2/2}H_n(\stackrel{~}{y})$$
(9)
Therefore the solution to Eq.(5) is

$$\mathrm{\Psi }exp[(\stackrel{~}{x}_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{\mu \nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\mathrm{}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{p+1}^2)]\underset{i}{}H_{n_i}(\stackrel{~}{x}_i)\underset{jk}{}H_{n_{jk}}(\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{jk})\mathrm{}$$
(10)
where there are $`D`$ terms corresponding to $`n_1,n_2,\mathrm{},n_D`$, $`D(D1)/2`$ terms corresponding to $`n_{01},n_{02},\mathrm{},`$ etc. Thus the total number of terms corresponding to the $`N`$-th excited state $`(N=n_{x1}+n_{x2}+\mathrm{}+n_{\sigma _{01}}+n_{\sigma _{02}}+\mathrm{})`$ is given by the degree of the Clifford algebra in $`D`$ dimensions $`2^D`$.

The respective value of the tension of the $`N`$-th excited state is

$$T_N=(N+\frac{1}{2}2^D)m_{p+1}$$
(11)
yielding quantization of tension.

Expression (11) is the analog of the respective value of the $`N`$-th energy state for a point oscillator. The analogy however is not complete. We point out one substantial difference. Since according to a new relativity principle  - all the dimensions are treated on equal footing (there are no preferred dimensions) all the modes of the $`p`$-loop oscillator( center of mass $`x_\mu `$, holographic modes, $`p+1`$ volume) are to be excited collectively. This behavior is in full compliance with the principle of polydimensional invariance by Pezzaglia . As a result, the first excited state is not $`N=1`$ ( as could be naively expected) but rather $`N=2^D`$. Therefore

$`T_1T_{2^D}=\frac{3}{2}(2^Dm_{p+1}`$)

instead of the familiar $`(3/2)m`$.

Recalling that $`L`$ is analogous to the amplitude $`a`$ and using the analogy between energy $`Em\omega ^2a^2`$ and tension $`T`$, we get $`T=m_{p+1}\mathrm{\Omega }^2L^2`$. Inserting this expression into Eq.(11) we arrive at the definition of the ”frequency” $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of the $`p`$-loop oscillator:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_N=\sqrt{(N+2^{D1})\frac{m_{p+1}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{p+1}}}$$
(12)
where we use $`L=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{p+1}/m_{p+1}}`$.

Having obtained the solution to Eq.(5), we consider in more detail the two limiting cases corresponding to the above defined 1) fractal and 2) smooth regions. The latter ( according to the correspondence principle) should be described by the expressions for a point oscillator. In particular, this means that the analog of the zero slope limit in string theory, the field theory limit, is a collapse of the $`p`$-loop histories to a point history :

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }0,m_{p+1}\mathrm{},T\mathrm{},\sigma _{\mu \nu },\sigma _{\mu \nu \rho },\mathrm{}\mathrm{}0,L0.\mathrm{}$$

and these limits are taken in such a way that the following combination reproduces the standard results of a point-particle oscillator :

$$\stackrel{~}{x}_\mu =\frac{x_\mu }{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\sqrt{m_{p+1}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{p+1}}x_\mu /a$$
(13)
where the $`nonzero`$ parameter $`a>\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a finite quantity and is nothing but the amplitude of the usual point-particle oscillator ! In string theory, there are two scales, the Planck scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and the string scale $`l_s>\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Without loss of generality we can assign $`al_s`$. A large value of $`a>>\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ would correspond to a “macroscopic” string. We shall return to this point when we address the black-hole entropy.

Using Eq.(13) we find $`m_{p+1}`$ in terms of the other variables :

$$m_{p+1}(M_{Planck})^{p+1}(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{a})^2<(M_{Planck})^{p+1}$$
(14)
where the Planck mass $`M_{Planck}1/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Notice that in the field-theory limit, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$, when the loop histories collapse to a point-history, Eq.(14) yields $`m_{p+1}\mathrm{}`$ as could be expected. From Eqs.(11) and (12) follows that in this region

$$\begin{array}{c}T_N(M_{Planck})^{p+1}(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{a})^2<(M_{Planck})^{p+1}\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Omega }_N(\omega _{Planck})^{p+1}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{a}<(\omega _{Planck})^{p+1}\hfill \\ \omega _{Planck}=1/\mathrm{\Lambda }\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
in full agreement with this region’s scales as compared to the Planck scales.

At the other end of the spectrum ( discrete-fractal/quantum gravity region) where $`m_{p+1}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{p+1}1`$ we would witness a collapse of all the scales to only one scale, namely the Planck scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In particular, this means that the string scale $`al_s\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and the oscillator parameters become

$$\stackrel{~}{x}_\mu =\frac{x_\mu }{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{p+1}m_{p+1}}\frac{x_\mu }{\mathrm{\Lambda }},m_{p+1}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{p+1}}(M_{Planck})^{p+1},$$
(16)
The ground state tension is :

$$T_om_{p+1}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{p+1}}$$

These relations are the familiar relations of string theory. In particular, if we set $`p=1`$ we get the basic string relation

$`T\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\frac{1}{\alpha ^{}}`$

Above we got two asymptotic expression for $`m_{p+1}`$

$$m_{p+1}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(p+1)}(\mathrm{\Lambda }/a)^2\hfill & \text{if }\mathrm{\Lambda }/a<1\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Lambda }^{(p+1)}\hfill & \text{if }m_{p+1}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{p+1}1,a\mathrm{\Lambda }\hfill \end{array}$$

It is suggestive to write $`m_{p+1}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{p+1}`$ as power series in $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }/a)^2`$ (e.g., cf. analogous procedure in hydrodynamics ):

$`m_{p+1}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{p+1}F(\mathrm{\Lambda }/a)=(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{a})^2[1+\alpha _1(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{a})^2+\alpha _2(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{a})^4+\mathrm{}]`$

where the $`small`$ coefficients $`\alpha _i`$ are such that the series is convergent for $`a\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

For example, the dimensionless coordinate $`\stackrel{~}{x}_\mu `$ given by Eq.(13), becomes in the field theory limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$, after performing a Taylor/binomial expansion of the square root :

$$\stackrel{~}{x}_\mu =\frac{x^\mu }{a}[1+\frac{\alpha _1}{2}(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{a})^2+\mathrm{}..]\frac{x^\mu }{a}$$

Notice that $`a`$ is a finite nonzero quantity.

If $`p=1(p+1=D=2)`$ then for the ground state $`N=0`$ Eq.(11) yields the ground energy per unit string length : $`T_{ground}=2m^2`$ (see footnote222that is for a point oscillator we get $`E_{ground}=\mathrm{}\omega /2=\sqrt{T_{ground}/8}`$). Returning to the units $`\mathrm{}`$, and introducing $`1/a=\omega `$ ( where $`\omega `$ is the characteristic frequency) we get (cf.ref )

$`\mathrm{}_{eff}=\mathrm{}\sqrt{1+\alpha _1(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{a})^2+\alpha _2(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{a})^4+\mathrm{}}`$

Truncating the series at the second term , we recover the string uncertainty relation  :

$`\mathrm{\Delta }x\mathrm{\Delta }p>\frac{1}{2}|[x,p]|=\frac{\mathrm{}_{eff}}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }x>\frac{\mathrm{}}{2\mathrm{\Delta }p}+\beta \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Delta }p`$

where $`\beta `$ is a multiplicative parameter. As $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ one recovers the ordinary Heisenberg uncertainty relations. Interestingly enough, the string uncertainty relation until recently did not have ” a proper theoretical framework for the extra term” . On the other hand, this relation has emerged as one of the results of our theoretical model  .

As a next step we find the degeneracy associated with the $`N`$-th excited level of the $`p`$-loop oscillator. The degeneracy $`dg(N)`$ is equal to the number of partitions of the number $`N`$ into a set of $`2^D`$ numbers

$$N=\{n_{x^1}+n_{x^2}+\mathrm{}+n_{x^D}+n_{\sigma _{\mu \nu }}+n_{\sigma _{\mu \nu \rho }}+\mathrm{}+n_{\mathrm{\Omega }_{p+1}}\}.$$

This means that there is a $`collective`$ center of mass excitations, holographic area, volume,…excitations given by the quantum numbers $`n_{x^D};n_{\sigma _{\mu \nu }},\mathrm{}\mathrm{}.n_{\mathrm{\Omega }_{p+1}}`$ respectively. These collective $`extended`$ excitations are the $`true`$ quanta of a background independent quantum gravity. Thus the degeneracy is

$$dg(N)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2^D+N)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(N+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(2^D)}$$
(17)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the gamma function.

We compare $`dg(N)`$ (17) with the asymptotic quantum degeneracy of a massive (super) string state given by Li and Yoneya :

$$dg(n)=exp[2\pi \sqrt{n\frac{d_s2}{6}}]$$
(18)
where $`d_s`$ is the string dimension and $`n>>1`$. To this end we equate (18) and degeneracy (17) of the first excited state ( $`N=2^D`$) of the $`p`$-loop. This could be justified on physical grounds as follows. One can consider different frames in a new relativity: one frame where an observer sees strings only (with a given degeneracy) and another frame where the same observer sees a collective excitations of points, strings, membranes,p-loops, etc. The results pertinent to the degeneracy (represented by a number) should be invariant in any frame.

Solving the resulting equation $`dg(N)=dg(n)`$ with respect to $`\sqrt{n}`$ we get

$$\sqrt{n}=\frac{1}{2\pi }\sqrt{\frac{6}{d_s2}}Ln[\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2^{D+1})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2^D+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(2^D)}]$$
(19)
The condition $`n>>1`$ implies that $`D>>1`$ thus simplifying (19). If we set $`d_s=26`$ ( a bosonic string) and use the asymptotic representation of the logarithm of the gamma function for large values of its argument

$`Ln\mathrm{\Gamma }(z)=Ln(\sqrt{2\pi })+(z1/2)Ln(z)z+O(1/z)`$

we obtain the following logarithm of the degeneracy yielding the entropy :

$$Entropy=Ln[dg(n)]\sqrt{n}2^D\frac{ln(2)}{2\pi }2^{D1}N$$
(20)
From (Eq.18) follows that for $`n>>1`$ the $`entropy=Ln[dg(n)]\sqrt{n}`$. Let us consider a Schwarzschild black hole whose Schwarzschild radius $`R`$

$`R(GM)^{\frac{1}{(d3)}}`$

The black hole mass $`M`$ and the string length $`l_sR`$ obey the Regge relation

$$l_s^2M^2R^2M^2=n$$

which implies that the world sheet area and mass are quantized in Planck units : $`l_s^2=\sqrt{n}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ and $`M^2=\sqrt{n}M_{Planck}^2=\sqrt{n}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$. Li and Yoneya  obtained the following expression for the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of a Schwarzchild black hole of a radius $`Rl_s`$ 333It should be mentioned that the linear relation between the black hole entropy and is justified only for a narrow region of dimensions $`D[4,5]`$; in general, this relation loses its linear character  :

$$S_{BH}\frac{A}{G}\frac{R^{d2}}{G}\frac{(GM)^{\frac{d2}{d3}}}{G}=G^{\frac{1}{d3}}M^{\frac{d2}{d3}}=RM.$$

From the last two equations Li and Yoneya deduced that the $`(d2)`$\- dimensional horizon area in Planck units was $`S_{BH}`$ is

$$S_{BH}\sqrt{n}.$$

Now taking into account Eq. (20) we obtain

$$S_{BH}2^{D1}$$
(21)
This is a rather remarkable fact: the Shannon entropy of a $`p`$-loop oscillator in $`D`$-dimensional space ( for a sufficiently large $`D`$), that is a number $`N=2^D`$ ( the number of bits representing all the holographic coordinates), is proportional to the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of a Schwarzschild black hole. For a more rigorous study of the connection between Shannon’s information entropy and the quantum-statistical (thermodynamical) entropy see the work of Fujikawa . Because light is trapped inside, the Black Hole horizon is also an information horizon.

To summarize , expression(20) allows us to easily compare it with the Regge behavior of a string spectrum for large values of $`n>>1`$. To this end we associate with each bit of a $`p`$-loop oscillator a fundamental Planck length $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, with area $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ , mass $`1/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, etc. The macroscopic string length is of the same order as the Schwarzschild radius, $`R^2l_s^2Area_s=`$N$`\times \mathrm{\Lambda }^2,m_{s}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=`$N$`\times M_{Planck}^2`$. On the other hand, according to (20) $`N`$ $`\sqrt{n}`$ which yields

$`l_s^2\sqrt{n}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2;m_s^2\sqrt{n}M_{Planck}^2`$

Therefore using the Regge relation between angular momentum and mass-squared, the respective angular momentum $`J`$ in units where $`\mathrm{}=1`$ is of the order :

$`J=m^2\times l_{s}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}nM_{Planck}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2=n`$

where we use $`M_{Planck}\mathrm{\Lambda }1`$ by definition. One can derive the Regge relation more precisely using the Bohr-Sommerfield correspondence principle in quantum mechanics but applied to the string case in question:

$$Action=P_{\mu \nu }𝑑\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mu \nu }(Tension)(Area)n\mathrm{}.$$

For more details of this relationship we refer to  where we have shown that the area-momentum variable $`P_{\mu \nu }`$, conjugate to the area tensor $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mu \nu }`$, obeys the Hamilton-Jacobi equation similar to the point particle case.

Addressing the black holes we still encounter the main remaining question: where does Einstein gravity appear in all of this? The answer lies in the behavior of a self-gravitating gas of loops. This is precisely where the Bohr correspondence limit operates. The large $`n>>1`$ limit is similar to the Bohr correspondence for the hydrogen atom ( highly excited energy states merge with the continuum ) where the product of $`n\mathrm{}`$ remains finite when $`n\mathrm{};\mathrm{}0`$. As the size of the string gets larger, the $`p`$-loop oscillator begins to resemble a gas of strings, or more precisely a gas of string-bits, a string-polymer. As it gets even larger, the correspondence limit comes into play, and the gas of loops will begin to gravitate. The derivation of Einstein equations for this self-gravitating gas of loops in the large $`n`$ limit : the Einstein tensor equals stress energy tensor ( with/without a cosmological constant ) will be the topic of a future publication.

## 3 Conclusion

Application of a simplified linearized equation derived from the master action functional of a new ( extended) relativity to a $`p`$-loop oscillator has allowed us to elementary obtain rather interesting results. First of all, the solution explicitly indicates existence of $`2`$ extreme regions characterized by the values of the dimensionless combination $`m_{p+1}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{p+1}`$ :

$`1)`$ the fractal region where $`m_{p+1}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{p+1}1`$ and $`2`$ scales collapse to one, namely Planck scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$

and

$`2)`$ the smooth region where $`m_{p+1}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{p+1}<<1`$ and we we recover the description of the conventional point oscillator. Here $`2`$ scales are present , a characteristic ”length” $`a`$ that we identified with the string scale $`l_s`$ and the ubiquitous Planck scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ ( $`a>\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) thus demonstrating explicitly the implied validity of the quantum mechanical solution in the region where $`a/\mathrm{\Lambda }>1`$.

For a specific case of $`p=1`$ (a string) the solution yields ( once again in an elementary fashion) one of the basic relations of string theory $`T=1/\alpha ^{}`$. In addition, it gives us a string uncertainty relation ( this time derived), which in turn is a truncated version of a more general uncertainty relation obtained earlier .

Comparing the degeneracy of the $`firstcollective`$ state of the p-loop for a very large number of dimensions $`D`$ with the respective expressions for the massive ( super) string theory given by Li and Yoneya  we found that the Shannon entropy ( which is also in agreement with the logarithm of the degeneracy of states ) of a $`p`$-loop oscillator in $`D`$-dimensional space ( for a sufficiently large $`D`$), that is a number $`N=2^D`$ ( the number of bits representing all the holographic coordinates), is proportional to the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of the Schwarzschild black hole.

The Regge behavior of the string spectrum for large $`n>>1`$ also follows from the obtained solution thus indicating its, at least qualitatively correct, character. Thus a study of a simplified model ( or ”toy”) problem of a linearized $`p`$-loop oscillator gave us ( with the help of elementary calculations) a wealth of both the well-known relations of string theory ( usually obtained with the help of a much more complicated mathematical technique)and some additional relations ( the generalized uncertainty relation). This indicates that the approach advocated by a new relativity might be very fruitful, especially if it will be possible to obtain analytic results on the basis of the full master action functional leading to functional nonlinear equations whose study will involve braided Hopf groups.

Acknowledgements  The authors would like to thank E.Spallucci and S.Ansoldi for many valuable discussions and comments.


text:
# Kashaev’s invariant and the volume of a hyperbolic knot after Y. Yokota

## 1. Introduction

In  R. Kashaev introduced a link invariant by using the quantum dilogarithm and after some concrete calculations for the knots $`4_1`$, $`5_2`$, and $`6_1`$, he conjectured in  the asymptotic behavior of his invariant determines the hyperbolic volume for hyperbolic links. More precisely his conjecture is as follows. For an integer $`N2`$ let $`L_N`$ be the Kashaev invariant of a link $`L`$.

###### Conjecture 1.1 (Kashaev).

If $`L`$ is hyperbolic, i.e. $`S^3L`$ has a complete hyperbolic structure, then

$$2\pi \underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{log}\left|L_N\right|}{N}=\mathrm{Vol}(L),$$

where $`\mathrm{Vol}(L)`$ is the volume of $`S^3L`$.

On the other hand in , J. Murakami and I proved that Kashaev’s invariant coincides with a colored Jones polynomial evaluated at a root of unity. By using this Y. Yokota, following D. Thurston , considered a tetrahedron decomposition corresponding to the $`R`$-matrix used to define colored Jones polynomials and showed that at least for a concrete example, the knot $`6_2`$, this decomposition gives a nice and constructive proof for Kashaev’s conjecture  (he also mentioned that this seems work well for other knots; especially for alternating knots). Several computations (without tetrahedron decompositions) were made in  and the conjecture was also confirmed for the knots $`6_3`$, $`7_2`$, and $`8_9`$, and for the Whitehead link. (In  a relation between the asymptotic behavior of the Kashaev invariant and the Chern–Simons invariant is also mentioned.)

After that Yokota used Kashaev’s original $`R`$-matrix and found another tetrahedron decomposition of a hyperbolic knot complement fit for the asymptotic behavior of Kashaev’s invariant  (see also ). This gives simpler decompositions and seems to work much better including non-alternating knots.

This is an expository note to describe Yokota’s method explaining beautiful harmony of Kashaev’s invariants and hyperbolic structures, putting special emphasis on the figure-eight knot.

###### Acknowledgments.

Part of this work was prepared for a series of lectures at Chiba University in July, 2000. I would like to thank K. Kuga for giving me the opportunity to give lectures there. Thanks are also due to J. Murakami, M. Okamoto, T. Takata and Y. Yokota for helpful discussions.

## 2. Algebra

In this section I describe Kashaev’s link invariant  following Yokota. We fix an integer $`N2`$ and put $`q=\mathrm{exp}\left(2\pi \sqrt{1}/N\right)`$. Put $`(x)_n=_{k=1}^n(1x^k)`$ for $`n0`$. For integers $`0k,l,m,nN1`$ we put

$$\theta \left(\begin{array}{cc}k& n\\ l& m\end{array}\right)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{if }lm\text{ and }q^k,q^l,q^m,q^n\text{ are on the unit circle counterclockwise}\hfill \\ & \text{(other pairs may be the same)},\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Note that $`\theta \left(\begin{array}{cc}k& n\\ l& m\end{array}\right)=1`$ if and only if

$$kl<mn,nkl<m,mnkl(m<l),\text{or}l<mnk.$$

For an integer $`x`$, we denote by $`[x]\{0,1,2,\mathrm{},N1\}`$ the residue modulo $`N`$.

Now Kashaev’s $`R`$-matrix $`R=\left(R_{l,m}^{k,n}\right)`$ is an $`N^2\times N^2`$-matrix given by

$`R_{l,m}^{k,n}={\displaystyle \frac{Nq^{1(ln+1)(mk)}\theta \left(\begin{array}{cc}k& n\\ l& m\end{array}\right)}{(q)_{[ml1]}(q^1)_{[nm]}(q)_{[kn]}(q^1)_{[lk]}}}`$
and
$`\left(R^1\right)_{l,m}^{k,n}={\displaystyle \frac{Nq^{1+(mk1)(ln)}\theta \left(\begin{array}{cc}k& n\\ l& m\end{array}\right)}{(q^1)_{[ml1]}(q)_{[nm]}(q^1)_{[kn]}(q)_{[lk]}}}.`$
Let $`\mu `$ be an $`N\times N`$-matrix with $`\mu _l^k=\delta _{k,l+1}q^{1/2}`$, where $`\delta _{i,j}`$ is Kronecker’s delta. Then $`(R,\mu ,q^{1/2},1)`$ is an enhanced Yang–Baxter operator , i.e. the following equalities hold. (See  for a proof.)

###### Proposition 2.1.

$$\left(Rid_^N\right)\left(id_^NR\right)\left(Rid_^N\right)=\left(id_^NR\right)\left(Rid_^N\right)\left(id_^NR\right),$$

$$\left(\mu \mu \right)R=R\left(\mu \mu \right),$$

$$\underset{m=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\left(R^{\pm 1}(id_^N\mu )\right)_{lm}^{km}=\left(q^{1/2}\right)^{\pm 1}\delta _{k,l}$$

with $`id_^N`$ the identity on $`^N`$.

Now I will describe how to calculate Kashaev’s invariant for knots using this enhanced Yang-Baxter operator.

First we present a knot in a $`(1,1)`$-tangle formula so that the string comes from above and goes down and at each crossing both arcs also go down. We decompose the string into edges so that at each crossing four edges meet and at each maximum/minimum where the string go from the left to the right two edges meet. See Figure 2.1 for example. A labeling is an assignment of an element in $`\{0,1,2,\mathrm{},N1\}`$ to each edge. Here we assign $`0`$ to the edge from the starting point and to the edge to the end point. We call the number assigned to an edge its label. Given a labeling we assign the following quantities to crossings and maxima/minima:

$$\text{}:R_{lm}^{kn},\text{}:\left(R^1\right)_{lm}^{kn},\text{}:\mu _l^k,\text{}:\left(\mu ^1\right)_l^k.$$

The weight for a labeling is the product of all the quantities above. Then the Kashaev invariant $`K_N`$ of a knot $`K`$ is defined to be the sum of all the weights up to some power of $`q`$ (which does not matter in our case), where the summation runs over all the labelings.

If four edges meeting at a crossing are labeled $`k`$, $`l`$, $`m`$ and $`n`$ as above, we call $`[nm]`$, $`[kn]`$, $`[lk]`$ and $`[ml1]`$ the angles between the adjacent edges. Then we have the following proposition.

###### Proposition 2.2 (\[9, Proposition 2\]).

The weight for a labeling vanishes unless all of the following conditions are satisfied. For a proof see .

1. the sum of the angles around any crossing is $`N1`$.
2. the sum of the angles contained in any bounded region is $`N1`$.
3. any angle in any of the two unbounded regions is zero.

We will calculate the Kashaev invariant for the figure-eight knot.

From Proposition 2.2 (3), we can assume that labels are as in Figure 2.1.

Then the Kashaev invariant $`4_1_N`$ is

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k[0,j1]}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i[1,j]}{}}\left(R^1\right)_{0,i}^{0,0}\left(R^1\right)_{0,1}^{j,i}R_{N1,0}^{k,0}R_{k,j}^{0,0}\left(\mu ^1\right)_{N1}^0\mu _1^0`$
$`=N^4{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k[0,j1]}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i[1,j]}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^1}{(q^1)_{[i1]}(q)_{[i]}}}\times {\displaystyle \frac{q^{1+(j)(i)}}{(q)_{[i1]}(q^1)_{[ji]}(q)_{[j]}}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{q^{1(N)(k)}}{(q)_{[k]}(q^1)_{[k1]}}}\times {\displaystyle \frac{q^{1(k+1)j}}{(q)_{[jk1]}(q^1)_{[j]}(q^1)_{[k]}}}`$
$`=N^2{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^j}{(q)_{[j]}(q^1)_{[j]}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k[0,j1]}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^{kj}}{(q)_{[jk1]}(q^1)_{[k]}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i[1,j]}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^{ij}}{(q)_{[i1]}(q^1)_{[ji]}}}`$
up to some power of $`q`$, since $`(q^1)_{[i1]}(q)_{[i]}=(q^1)_{i1}(q)_{Ni}={\displaystyle \frac{N}{(q)_{Ni}}}(q)_{Ni}=N`$ and $`(q)_{[k]}(q^1)_{[k1]}=(q)_k{\displaystyle \frac{N}{(q)_k}}=N`$. Here $`a[b,c]`$ means that $`q^b`$, $`q^a`$, and $`q^c`$ are on the unit circle counterclockwise (any pair may be the same). Note that $`a[b,c]`$ if and only if $`[ab]+[ca]=[cb]`$.

From the lemma below we have

$`4_1_N`$ $`=N^2{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{[j1]}q^{j([j1]+1)([j1]2j)/2}}{(q)_{[j]}(q^1)_{[j]}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k[0,j1]}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^{kj}}{(q)_{[jk1]}(q^1)_{[k]}}}`$
$`=N^2{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(q)_{[j]}(q^1)_{[j]}}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}(q)_{[N1+j]}(q^1)_{[N1+j]}`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}(q)_j(q^1)_j.`$
Note that the final formula coincides with Kashaev’s \[2, (2.2)\].

The following lemma is a key to reduce the summations of the Kashaev’s invariant.

###### Lemma 2.3 (Yokota’s version of \[3, Lemma 3.2\]).

Let $`0k,l,mN1`$ be integers. Then

$$\underset{k[l,m]}{}\frac{q^{(ml+1)k}}{(q)_{[mk]}(q^1)_{[kl]}}=(1)^{[ml]}q^{([ml]+1)([ml]2m)/2}.$$

###### Proof.

We use the following equality \[3, Lemma 3.2\].

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \underset{i=0}{\overset{N1\alpha }{}}\frac{q^{(\beta \alpha )i/2}}{(q)_i(q^1)_{N1\alpha i}}\hfill \\ & =\frac{(1)^{N1\alpha }q^{N(N1)/2\beta (\alpha +1)/2}}{N}\frac{(q)_\alpha (q)_{N1\alpha +[(\alpha \beta )/2]}}{(q)_{[(\alpha \beta )/2]}}.\hfill \end{array}$$

To prove the lemma, we put $`\beta =\alpha `$. Then we have

$$\underset{i=0}{\overset{N1\alpha }{}}\frac{q^{\alpha i}}{(q)_i(q^1)_{N\alpha i1}}=(1)^{N1\alpha }q^{N(N1)/2+\alpha (\alpha +1)/2}.$$

Putting $`i=[mk]`$ and $`N\alpha 1=[ml]`$, the conclusion follows. ∎

## 3. Geometry

In this section I will describe how to decompose a knot complement $`S^3K`$ into ideal topological tetrahedra and how these define hyperbolic structure when $`K`$ is the figure-eight knot. Here ‘ideal’ means that each vertex is at the cusp (the infinite point corresponding to $`K`$). (That is, all vertices of the tetrahedra meet at a point, and the complement of the regular neighborhood of the point is $`S^3K`$.)

Fix a knot diagram throughout.

### 3.1. Ideal tetrahedron decomposition of $`S^3(K\text{two points})`$

We will decompose $`S^3(K\text{two points})`$ into tetrahedra so that all the vertices are either on $`K`$ or on the two points outside $`K`$.

First we put an octahedron $`\mathrm{E}_i`$-$`\mathrm{A}_i\mathrm{B}_i\mathrm{C}_i\mathrm{D}_i`$-$`\mathrm{F}_i`$ at the $`i`$th crossing of the knot diagram so that $`\mathrm{E}_i\mathrm{F}_i`$ is perpendicular to the plane, that $`\mathrm{E}_i`$ and $`\mathrm{F}_i`$ touch the over-crossing point and the under-crossing point respectively, and that $`\mathrm{A}_i`$, $`\mathrm{B}_i`$, $`\mathrm{C}_i`$, and $`\mathrm{D}_i`$ are to the northeast, northwest, southwest, and southeast, respectively. (see Figures 3.1 and 3.3). We call this the $`i`$th octahedron.

We decompose each octahedron into four tetrahedra as shown in Figure 3.2. (For the figure-eight knot, we now have 16 tetrahedra.) We name each vertex of the tetrahedra as in Figure 3.2. (Here we drop subscriptions.)

We deform an octahedron attached to a positive crossing as follows. We pull the vertices $`\mathrm{B}`$ and $`\mathrm{D}`$ upward and identify the edge $`\mathrm{EB}`$ with the edge $`\mathrm{ED}`$. Similarly we pull the vertices $`\mathrm{A}`$ and $`\mathrm{C}`$ downward and identify the edge $`\mathrm{FA}`$ with the edge $`\mathrm{FC}`$. (See Figure 3.3.)

Now the resulting twisted octahedron consists of four twisted tetrahedra (Figure 3.4).

The surface of a twisted octahedron consists of four leaves made from $`\mathrm{}b^+b^rb^l\mathrm{}c^+c^rc^l`$, $`\mathrm{}c^{}c^lc^r\mathrm{}d^{}d^ld^r`$, $`\mathrm{}d^+d^rd^l\mathrm{}a^+a^ra^l`$, and $`\mathrm{}a^{}a^la^r\mathrm{}b^{}b^lb^r`$, which we will call Leaf $`\gamma `$, Leaf $`\delta `$, Leaf $`\alpha `$, and Leaf $`\beta `$, respectively (Figure 3.5).

Now this twisted octahedron and the near positive crossing look like Figure 3.6.

For an octahedron attached to a negative crossing we deform it similarly. We pull the vertices $`\mathrm{B}`$ and $`\mathrm{D}`$ downward, and $`\mathrm{A}`$ and $`\mathrm{C}`$ upward to identify the edge $`\mathrm{EB}`$ with the edge $`\mathrm{ED}`$, and the edge $`\mathrm{FA}`$ with the edge $`\mathrm{FC}`$. In this case Leaf $`\alpha `$ is made from $`\mathrm{}d^{}d^ld^r`$ and $`\mathrm{}a^{}a^la^r`$, and Leaves $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$, and $`\delta `$ are from $`\mathrm{}a^+a^ra^l`$ and $`\mathrm{}b^+b^rb^l`$, $`\mathrm{}b^{}b^lb^r`$ and $`\mathrm{}c^{}c^lc^r`$, and $`\mathrm{}c^+c^rc^l`$ and $`\mathrm{}d^+d^rd^l`$, respectively.

Now the whole picture for the figure-eight knot is as shown in Figure 3.7.

Next we identify two leaves facing each other along an arc by thickening the octahedra and shortening the arc. For the figure-eight knot case, we identify Leaves $`\delta _1`$ and $`\alpha _2`$, $`\gamma _2`$ and $`\alpha _3`$, $`\gamma _3`$ and $`\beta _4`$, $`\delta _4`$ and $`\beta _2`$, $`\delta _2`$ and $`\alpha _1`$, $`\gamma _1`$ and $`\alpha _4`$, $`\gamma _4`$ and $`\beta _3`$, and $`\delta _3`$ and $`\beta _1`$. Then the eight vertices $`\mathrm{A}_1`$, $`\mathrm{C}_1`$, $`\mathrm{A}_2`$, $`\mathrm{C}_2`$, $`\mathrm{B}_3`$, $`\mathrm{D}_3`$, $`\mathrm{B}_4`$, and $`\mathrm{D}_4`$ are identified. We call the resulting vertex $`+\mathrm{}`$. Similarly the eight vertices $`\mathrm{B}_1`$, $`\mathrm{D}_1`$, $`\mathrm{B}_2`$, $`\mathrm{D}_2`$, $`\mathrm{A}_3`$, $`\mathrm{C}_3`$, $`\mathrm{A}_4`$, and $`\mathrm{C}_4`$ are identified with the new vertex $`\mathrm{}`$. Moreover the other eight vertices $`E_1,F_1,\mathrm{},E_4,F_4`$ are also identified, which we call $`\mathrm{G}`$.

Now we have an ideal tetrahedron decomposition of $`S^3(K\pm \mathrm{})`$ with three ideal vertices. The boundary torus of the regular neighborhood of $`\mathrm{G}`$ and the boundary spheres of the regular neighborhoods of $`\pm \mathrm{}`$ look like Figures 3.8, 3.9, and 3.10 respectively if $`K`$ is the figure-eight knot. Note that we always look at boundaries from the outside.

### 3.2. Ideal tetrahedron decomposition of $`S^3K`$

We will deform the ideal tetrahedron decomposition of $`S^3(K\pm \mathrm{})`$ given above to obtain an ideal tetrahedron decomposition of $`S^3K`$.

To do this we collapse Leaf $`\beta _1`$ (= Leaf $`\delta _3`$) into the point $`G=E_1=F_1=\mathrm{}=E_4=F_4`$ and extend this collapsing over the other tetrahedra linearly. Note that this leaf corresponds to the broken point of the knot diagram to make it a $`(1,1)`$-tangle in § 2.

I will show how octahedra will collapse.

In the first octahedron $`\mathrm{E}_1`$-$`\mathrm{A}_1\mathrm{B}_1\mathrm{C}_1\mathrm{D}_1`$-$`\mathrm{F}_1`$, there are two faces $`\mathrm{}a_1^+a_1^ra_1^l`$ and $`\mathrm{}b_1^+b_1^rb_1^l`$ which make Leaf $`\beta _1`$. Therefore the tetrahedron $`\mathrm{F}_1\mathrm{E}_1\mathrm{A}_1\mathrm{B}_1`$ and $`\mathrm{F}_1\mathrm{E}_1\mathrm{B}_1\mathrm{C}_1`$ (they are the cones over $`\mathrm{}a_1^+a_1^ra_1^l`$ and $`\mathrm{}b_1^+b_1^rb_1^l`$ with $`\mathrm{F}_1`$) are collapsed to edges and so three edges $`\mathrm{F}_1\mathrm{A}_1`$, $`\mathrm{F}_1\mathrm{B}_1`$ and $`\mathrm{F}_1\mathrm{C}_1`$ are identified with the edge $`\mathrm{F}_1\mathrm{E}_1`$. The tetrahedron $`\mathrm{F}_1\mathrm{E}_1\mathrm{C}_1\mathrm{D}_1`$ and $`\mathrm{F}_1\mathrm{E}_1\mathrm{D}_1\mathrm{A}_1`$ (they are the joins $`\mathrm{E}_1\mathrm{C}_1\mathrm{D}_1\mathrm{F}_1`$ and $`\mathrm{E}_1\mathrm{A}_1\mathrm{D}_1\mathrm{F}_1`$) are collapsed to triangles and so two triangles $`\mathrm{F}_1\mathrm{D}_1\mathrm{C}_1`$ and $`\mathrm{F}_1\mathrm{A}_1\mathrm{D}_1`$ are identified with the triangle $`\mathrm{E}_1\mathrm{F}_1\mathrm{D}_1`$. So the first octahedron is collapsed to the triangle $`\mathrm{F}_1\mathrm{E}_1\mathrm{D}_1`$. See Figure 3.11.

Similarly the third octahedron is collapsed to the triangle $`\mathrm{F}_3\mathrm{E}_3\mathrm{B}_3`$ since it contains the faces $`\mathrm{}c_3^{}c_3^lc_3^r`$ and $`\mathrm{}d_3^{}d_3^ld_3^r`$ which make Leaf $`\delta _3`$. Here two triangles $`\mathrm{E}_3\mathrm{B}_3\mathrm{C}_3`$ and $`\mathrm{E}_3\mathrm{A}_3\mathrm{B}_3`$ are identified with the triangle $`\mathrm{F}_3\mathrm{E}_3\mathrm{B}_3`$.

On the other hand the edge $`\mathrm{E}_4\mathrm{C}_4`$ is identified with the edge $`\mathrm{C}_3\mathrm{F}_3=\mathrm{A}_3\mathrm{F}_3`$, which is contained in Leaf $`\delta _3`$. Moreover the edge $`\mathrm{B}_4\mathrm{A}_4`$ is identified with the edge $`\mathrm{C}_1\mathrm{B}_1`$, which is contained in Leaf $`\beta _1`$. Therefore the fourth octahedron is collapsed to the tetrahedron $`\mathrm{F}_4\mathrm{E}_4\mathrm{D}_4\mathrm{A}_4`$ as in Figure 3.12. Here the tetrahedron $`\mathrm{F}_4\mathrm{E}_4\mathrm{B}_4\mathrm{C}_4`$ is collapsed to the triangle $`\mathrm{F}_4\mathrm{E}_4\mathrm{B}_4`$, which is identified with the triangle $`\mathrm{F}_4\mathrm{E}_4\mathrm{B}_4`$. Then the tetrahedron $`\mathrm{F}_4\mathrm{E}_4\mathrm{A}_4\mathrm{B}_4`$ is collapsed to the triangle $`\mathrm{F}_4\mathrm{E}_4\mathrm{A}_4`$. The tetrahedron $`\mathrm{F}_4\mathrm{E}_4\mathrm{C}_4\mathrm{D}_4`$ is collapsed to the triangle $`\mathrm{F}_4\mathrm{E}_4\mathrm{D}_4`$.

Similarly the second octahedron is collapsed to the tetrahedron $`\mathrm{F}_2\mathrm{E}_2\mathrm{B}_2\mathrm{C}_2`$ since two edges $`\mathrm{E}_2\mathrm{A}_2`$ and $`\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{D}_2`$ are collapsed to points respectively.

After all only two tetrahedron $`\mathrm{F}_2\mathrm{E}_2\mathrm{B}_2\mathrm{C}_2`$ and $`\mathrm{F}_4\mathrm{E}_4\mathrm{D}_4\mathrm{A}_4`$ survive.

Now we want to know the torus boundary of the regular neighborhood of this new vertex. To do that we first look at the regular neighborhood of Leaf $`\beta _1`$ (= Leaf $`\delta _3`$). Figures 3.13 and 3.14 indicate how it appears in the first and the fourth octahedra respectively and how it is collapsed if we collapse the leaf to a point.

In the tetrahedron decomposition of $`S^3(K\pm \mathrm{})`$ the intersections of the regular neighborhood of Leaf $`\beta _1`$ and the boundaries of the (bigger) regular neighborhoods of $`\mathrm{G}`$ and $`\pm \mathrm{}`$ look like the shaded regions of Figure 3.15.

Then we remove the shaded regions and glue the resulting boundaries following the recipe in Figures 3.13 and 3.14, i.e. glue

* $`c_1^+`$ and $`c_1^r`$, $`d_1^+`$ and $`d_1^l`$, $`a_3^{}`$ and $`a_3^r`$, $`b_3^{}`$ and $`b_3^l`$, $`a_4^r`$ and $`a_4^l`$, $`b_4^+`$ and $`b_4^l`$, $`c_4^+`$ and $`c_4^r`$, $`c_2^r`$ and $`c_2^l`$, $`d_2^{}`$ and $`d_2^l`$, and $`a_2^{}`$ and $`a_2^r`$ with quadrangles, and
* $`\{a_1^+,a_1^r,a_1^l\}`$, $`\{b_1^+,b_1^r,b_1^l\}`$, $`\{c_3^{},c_3^r,c_3^l\}`$, $`\{d_3^{},d_3^r,d_3^l\}`$ with hexagons.

Then we have the following pictures of the boundary of the regular neighborhood of $`\beta _1`$ (Figures 3.16 and 3.17).

To collapse it we again follow the recipe in Figures 3.13 and 3.14 and obtain the picture of the boundary of the regular neighborhood of the collapsed $`\beta _1`$. In Figure 3.18 the edges with same numbers are identified.

We finally have the triangulation of the cusp torus of $`S^3K`$ (Figure 3.19). In the figure $`\lambda `$ and $`\mu `$ denote the latitude (longitude) and the meridian of $`K`$ respectively.

### 3.3. Hyperbolicity condition

Now we have a topological ideal tetrahedron decomposition of $`S^3K`$. To introduce a complete hyperbolic structure, we regard each tetrahedron as an ideal hyperbolic tetrahedron parameterized by a complex number with positive imaginary part. This complex parameter $`z`$ is chosen as follows. First recall that an ideal hyperbolic tetrahedron can be characterized by a Euclidean triangle. (If we consider the upper half space model of the hyperbolic space, then an ideal hyperbolic tetrahedron can be located so that one ideal vertex is at the infinity and the other three are on the $`xy`$-plane. Then one face of the tetrahedron is in a hemisphere and the other three are in upper half planes perpendicular to the $`xy`$-plane. Our triangle is the intersection of the three half planes and the $`xy`$-plane.) If one puts the triangle on the complex plane with two vertices on $`0`$ and $`1`$, then the other is on $`z`$. Note that there are three ways to choose such a parameter (Figure 3.20).

For the tetrahedron with vertex $`b_2^{}`$ we associate $`b`$ and that with $`d_4^{}`$ we associate $`d`$, where $``$ is $`+`$, $``$, $`r`$, or $`l`$. In the cusp torus the triangle labeled $`b_2^{}`$ and $`d_4^{}`$ are similar to the triangles parameterized by $`b`$ and $`d`$ respectively for any $``$.

It is well known that if the following two conditions are satisfied, then an ideal tetrahedron decomposition parameterized as above defines a hyperbolic structure (more precisely complete hyperbolic structure). (See for example .)

1. Consistency condition: at each vertex in the cusp torus, the product of the parameter around the vertex is $`1`$, and
2. Cusp condition: the products of the parameters along the latitude and the meridian are $`1`$. Here the parameter of a triangle along a loop is the parameter associated to the small triangle cut by the loop.

###### Remark 3.1.

The consistency condition means that at each edge of the tetrahedron decomposition the sum of the dihedral angles is equal to $`2\pi `$. The cusp condition means that the cusp torus is Euclidean.

In our example we have two edges, one connecting $`b_2^l=b_2^{}`$ and $`b_2^r=b_2^+`$ and the other connecting $`d_4^l=d_4^+`$ and $`d_4^r=d_4^{}`$. So from the consistency condition we have the following two equations since the consistency conditions of two vertices on the torus are the same if they belong to the same edge.

$`b\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1d}}\right)b\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d}}\right)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b}}\right)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d}}\right)`$ $`=1,`$
$`d\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1b}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1d}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1b}}\right)d\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b}}\right)`$ $`=1.`$
From the cusp condition we have the following two equations.

(3.1) $`\mu `$ $`:b^1d=1,`$
(3.2) $`\lambda `$ $`:\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1b}}\right)^1d\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b}}\right)^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1d}}\right)`$
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1b}}\right)^1d(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b}})^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1d}}\right)=1.`$
From (3.1) we have $`b=d`$ and then the rest are all equivalent to $`b^2b+1=0`$. Since the imaginary part of $`b`$ should be positive, we have $`b=d=\mathrm{exp}(\pi \sqrt{1}/3)`$ and so the two tetrahedra should be regular.

## 4. Analysis, and Harmony

In §2 we know that if we calculate the Kashaev invariant of the figure-eight knot only the parameter $`j`$ contributes. Due to Kashaev , the asymptotic behavior of $`4_1_N`$ for large $`N`$ is

$$\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{N}{2\pi \sqrt{1}}\left\{\mathrm{Li}_2(z)+\mathrm{Li}_2(z^1)\right\}\right]𝑑z,$$

where $`\mathrm{Li}_2(z)=_0^z\mathrm{log}(1u)/u𝑑u`$ is the dilogarithm function. Note that $`z`$ corresponds to $`q^j`$ and that $`\mathrm{Li}_2(z)`$ and $`\mathrm{Li}_2(z^1)`$ corresponds to $`(q)_j`$ and $`(q^1)_j`$ respectively. We can apply the saddle point method to this integral and know that for large $`N`$ it is approximated by the value

$$\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{NV(z_0)}{2\pi \sqrt{1}}\right]$$

with $`V(z):=\mathrm{Li}_2(z)+\mathrm{Li}_2(z^1)`$ and $`z_0`$ satisfies $`dV(z_0)/dz=0`$. Since

$$\frac{dV(z)}{dz}=\frac{\mathrm{log}(1z)}{z}+\frac{\mathrm{log}(1z^1)}{z},$$

$`z_0`$ satisfies

(4.1)
$$z_0^2z_0+1=0.$$

Now the Kashaev conjecture follows in this case since $`V(z_0)`$ is the volume of the figure-eight knot complement, which is twice the volume of the regular tetrahedron.

On the other hand in §3 we know that only two tetrahedra parameterized by $`b`$ and $`d`$ survive. Moreover from the cusp condition these two parameters coincide and satisfy the equation

$$b^2b+1=0,$$

which coincides with (4.1)! Observe that $`\mathrm{Li}_2(z)`$ corresponds to $`(q)_{j1}=N/(q)_{[j]}`$ which comes from the angle between the edges around the second crossing labeled $`0`$ and $`j`$, and $`\mathrm{Li}_2(z^1)`$ to $`(q^1)_{j1}=N/(q^1)_{[j]}`$ which comes from the angle around the fourth crossing between the edges labeled $`0`$ and $`j`$.

Yokota proved in  similar situations occur for much more general knots including non-alternating knots, showing that for a fixed knot diagram the angles between the surviving labelings of the summation in $`K_N`$ correspond to the surviving dihedral angles in the ideal tetrahedron decomposition and that the partial differential equations defining the saddle point of the integral approximating $`K_N`$ for large $`N`$ coincide with the hyperbolicity condition. I hope that this note will help the reader to read Yokota’s rather complicated but beautiful paper .