text:
# Truncation of functional relations in the XXZ model.

## 1 Introduction.

We consider the integrable XXZ model with a special open boundary condition. Its Hamiltonian

$$H_{XXZ}=\underset{n=1}{\overset{N1}{}}[\sigma _n^+\sigma _{n+1}^{}+\sigma _n^{}\sigma _{n+1}^++\frac{\mathrm{cosh}(\eta )}{2}\sigma _n^z\sigma _{n+1}^z+\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\eta )}{2}(\sigma _n^z\sigma _{n+1}^z)].$$

This Hamiltonian is invariant under quantum algebra $`U_q(sl(2))`$ , whose generators $`X`$, $`Y`$ and $`H`$ satisfy the following commutation relations

$$[H,X]=X,[H,Y]=Y,[X,Y]=[2H]_q,$$

where the function $`[x]_q\frac{q^xq^x}{qq^1}`$ and $`qe^\eta `$. We have following representation for $`X`$, $`Y`$, and $`H`$ in the terms of Pauli matrices :

$`X`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}}q^{\frac{1}{2}(\sigma _1^z+\mathrm{}+\sigma _{n1}^z)}\sigma _n^+q^{\frac{1}{2}(\sigma _{n+1}^z+\mathrm{}+\sigma _N^z)},`$
$`Y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}}q^{\frac{1}{2}(\sigma _1^z+\mathrm{}+\sigma _{n1}^z)}\sigma _n^{}q^{\frac{1}{2}(\sigma _{n+1}^z+\mathrm{}+\sigma _N^z)},`$
$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _n^z}{2}}.`$
We concentrate on the case where $`q^{p+1}=1`$. It is known , that if $`q^{p+1}=1`$, then $`X^{p+1}=0`$ and $`Y^{p+1}=0`$; we can therefore consider the subfactor space

$$V_p=KerX/ImX^p.$$

The result of the restricting the XXZ model on $`V_p`$ is the Minimal Model of Integrable Lattice Theory $`LM(p,p+1)`$ , . The thermodynamic limit is the ordinary Minimal Model of CFT $`M(p,p+1)`$  with the Virasoro central charge $`c=1\frac{6}{p(p+1)}`$ .

The XXZ model is integrable , and as shown by Sklyanin , there exists a family of transfer matrices which commute with the Hamiltonian and between themselves. The Sklyanin transfer matrices are also $`U_q(sl(2))`$ invariant . Therefore, they can also be restricted on $`V_p`$ .As shown in , a result of this restriction is the truncation of the fusion functional relations  for the transfer matrices. This statement was proved in  using $`T`$-$`Q`$ Baxter equation. In this work we prove this fact more directly and algebraically. Namely, we prove that if $`q^{p+1}=1`$, then the Sklyanin transfer matrix $`t_{p/2}(u)`$ with the spin $`j=p/2`$ in theauxiliary space vanishes after the restriction on $`V_p`$ because

$`t_{p/2}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`X^pM+NX,`$ (1)
where $`M`$ and $`N`$ are some operators in the quantum space.
In another words,

$$t_{p/2}(u)=0(modKerX/ImX^p).$$

Then as it follows from Eq. (1) that the fusion functional relations are truncated and transformed to a system of functional equations that can be used to obtain the eigenvalues of the transfer matrices.

This paper is organized as follows.

In Sec. 2, we recall some basic formulas that are necessary for introducing the Sklyanin transfer matrices in Sec. 3.

In Sec. 4, we show how to obtain the operator $`X`$ from a Sklyanin monodromy matrix.

It will allow us then to obtain commutation relations between the generators of the quantum algebra $`U_q(\widehat{sl}(2))`$ and the Sklyanin monodromy matrices in Sec.5.

In Sec. 6, 7, 8, we express the $`L`$ operators in terms of the generators of the Zamolodchikov algebra and obtain commutation relations between these new operators and the generators of the quantum algebra $`U_q(\widehat{sl}(2))`$ .

In Sec. 9, we rewrite the Sklyanin transfer matrix in the new variables.

In Sec. 10, we introduce the operator $`\mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X}`$.

In Sec. 11, we write down some useful properties of $`\mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X}`$.

In Sec-s. 12and13 we prove (1) which is our main statement
(the $`\mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X}`$ theorem).

## 2 Yang–Baxter equation.

The integrable structure of XXZ is confined in the well-known equation

$`R_{bm}^{an}(uv)L_c^b(u)L_k^m(v)`$ $`=`$ $`L_m^n(v)L_b^a(u)R_{ck}^{bm}(uv),`$ (2)
where $`L`$ is a monodromy matrix whose entries $`L_n^m`$ ($`n,m=1,\mathrm{},2j+1`$) are operators acting in the so-called quantum space, which is a tensor product of $`N`$ two-dimensional linear spaces in our case.The dimension $`2j+1`$ of the so-called auxiliary space can be different, strictly speaking we should write something like $`(L_j)_n^m`$ instead of $`L_n^m`$ and $`(R_{j_1j_2})_{bm}^{an}`$ instead of $`R_{bm}^{an}`$, but sometimes for simplicity we do not do that and assume that everything is understood from the context. The $`R_{j_1j_2}`$-matrix acts in a tensor product of two auxiliary spaces and satisfies to the Yang–Baxter equation

$$R_{bm}^{an}(uv)R_{cr}^{bp}(u)R_{ks}^{mr}(v)=R_{mr}^{np}(v)R_{bs}^{ar}(u)R_{ck}^{bm}(uv)$$

and the unitarity relation

$$(R_{j_1j_2})_{ck}^{am}(u)(R_{j_1j_2})_{bn}^{ck}(u)=\varphi _{j_1j_2}(u)\varphi _{j_1j_2}(u)\delta _b^a\delta _n^m.$$

The monodromy matrix $`L`$ can be realized through an N-uple product of $`R`$-matrixes.

$$L(u)=R_N(u)\mathrm{}R_1(u),$$

here a comultiplier $`R_n`$ stands for the $`R`$-matrix acting in a tenzor product of the auxiliary space and of the $`n`$-th comultiplier of the quantum space. We need the related matrix $`\overline{L}^t(u)`$,

$$\overline{L}^t(u)=R_1(u)\mathrm{}R_N(u)L^1(u).$$

It is easy to show that

$$\overline{L}_j^t(u)=\xi _j^N(u)L_j^1(u)$$

where $`\xi _j(u)\varphi _{1/2j}(u)\varphi _{1/2j}(u)`$. Using this equality, it is possible to obtain the formulas

$`R_{bm}^{an}(uv)\overline{L}_k^m(v)\overline{L}_c^b(u)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{L}_b^a(u)\overline{L}_m^n(v)R_{ck}^{bm}(uv)`$ (3)
$`L_c^a(u)\overline{L}_k^m(v)R_{bk}^{cn}(u+v)`$ $`=`$ $`R_{cm}^{ak}(u+v)\overline{L}_n^k(v)L_b^c(u)`$
In our case, the $`R`$-matrix

$$R(u)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{sinh}(u+(\frac{1}{2}+\widehat{H})\eta )& \mathrm{sinh}(\eta )\widehat{F}& & \\ \mathrm{sinh}(\eta )\widehat{E}& \mathrm{sinh}(u+(\frac{1}{2}\widehat{H})\eta )& & \end{array}\right).$$

The $`\widehat{E}`$, $`\widehat{F}`$, $`\widehat{H}`$ are generators of the quantum algebra $`U_q(sl(2))`$: $`[\widehat{H},\widehat{E}]=\widehat{E}`$, $`[\widehat{H},\widehat{F}]=\widehat{F}`$, $`[\widehat{E},\widehat{F}]=[2\widehat{H}]_q`$.
In the representation with the spin $`j`$ we have

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\pi _j(\widehat{H})_{mn}=(j+1n)\delta _{m,n},& m,n=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2},\mathrm{},\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}j+1.& & \\ \pi _j(\widehat{E})_{mn}=\omega _m\delta _{m,n1},& \pi _j(\widehat{F})_{mn}=\omega _n\delta _{m1,n}.& & \end{array}$$

where

$$\omega _n\sqrt{[n]_q[2j+1n]_q}.$$

The spin $`j`$ takes values from the set ($`0,\frac{1}{2},1,\mathrm{})`$.

## 3 Sklyanin transfer matrix.

It was shown by Sklyanin in  that if transfer matrices are defined as

$`t_j(u)`$ $`=`$ $`tr_{\pi _j}(e^{2(u+\eta )\widehat{H}}L_j(u)e^{2\widehat{H}u}\overline{L}_j^t(u))`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n,k=1}{\overset{2j+1}{}}}e^{2(nk)u}q^{2(j+1n)}(L_j)_k^n(u)\overline{(}L_j)^n_k(u),`$
where, as above

$$(\overline{L}_n^m)_{i_N\mathrm{}i_1}^{j_N\mathrm{}j_1}=(L_n^m)_{j_N\mathrm{}j_1}^{i_N\mathrm{}i_1},$$

then the transfer matrices commute between themselves,

$$[t_{j_1}(u_1),t_{j_2}(u_2)]=0$$

and with the Hamiltonian,

$$[t_j(u),H_{XXZ}]=0$$

The basic transfer matrix $`t_{1/2}(u)`$ with the spin of the auxiliary space $`j=1/2`$ is related to the $`XXZ`$ Hamiltonian by

$$H_{XXZ}=\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\eta )}{2}\frac{d\mathrm{log}t_{1/2}(u)}{du}|_{u=0}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}^2(\eta )}{2\mathrm{cosh}(\eta )}\frac{N}{2}\mathrm{cosh}(\eta ).$$

## 4 Behavior of $`L`$ as $`u\pm \mathrm{}`$.

We consider the monodromy matrix in the representation with the spin $`1/2`$. It is a $`2\times 2`$ matrix whose entries are some operators. Using the expression of the monodromy matrix as an N-uple product of $`R`$-matrices with same auxilary and different quantum spaces it is easy to obtain its behavior as $`u\pm \mathrm{}`$:

$`L(u+\mathrm{})`$ $`=`$ $`2^Ne^{(u+\eta /2)(N1)}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}e^{u+\eta /2}q^H& (qq^1)X_0& & \\ (qq^1)X& e^{u+\eta /2}q^H& & \end{array}\right)`$ (6)
$`L(u\mathrm{})`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^N2^Ne^{(u+\eta /2)(N1)}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}e^{(u+\eta /2)}q^H& (qq^1)Y& & \\ (qq^1)Y_0& e^{(u+\eta /2)}q^H& & \end{array}\right).`$ (9)
The explicit expressions for $`X_0`$ and $`Y_0`$ in terms of Pauli matrices can be derived from those for $`X`$ and $`Y`$ by changing $`qq^1`$ and $`\sigma ^\pm \sigma ^{}`$. The $`X`$, $`Y`$, $`X_0`$, $`Y_0`$ and $`H`$ are generators of the quantum affine algebra $`U_q(\widehat{sl}(2))`$. Namely, if we denote: $`x_1X`$, $`y_0Y_0`$, $`x_0X_0`$, $`y_1Y`$, $`h_0=h_1H`$, then the relations $`[x_i,y_i]=[2H]_q`$, $`[x_i,y_j]=0`$, $`[H,x_0]=x_0`$, $`[H,y_1]=y_1`$, $`[H,x_1]=x_1`$ and $`[H,y_0]=y_0`$ are fulfilled as well as the Serre relations

$$\left(ad_qx_i\right)^3x_j=0,\left(ad_qy_i\right)^3y_j=0,$$

where

$$\left(ad_qx_i\right)^3x_j\left(x_i\right)^3x_j[3]_q\left(x_i\right)^2x_jx_i+[3]_qx_ix_j\left(x_i\right)^2x_j\left(x_i\right)^3.$$

## 5 Transformation of $`L_n^m`$ and $`\overline{L}_n^m`$ under the quantum group action.

We consider the Eq-s. (2) and (3) in the limit as $`u\pm \mathrm{}`$. We take the monodromy matrix $`L(u)`$ in the representation with the spin $`j=1/2`$.We take the second monodromy matrix $`L(v)`$ in the representation with an arbitrary spin $`j`$. The $`L(u)`$ matrix in the limit yields the generators of the algebra $`U_q(\widehat{sl}(2))`$ with respect to the formulas in the previous section. We thus obtain the following commutation relations between the $`L_n^m`$, $`\overline{L}_n^m`$, and the generators of $`U_q(\widehat{sl}(2))`$. We here write only those containing $`X`$ and $`q^{\pm H}`$:

$`q^HL_k^n`$ $`=`$ $`q^{nk}L_k^nq^H,`$ (10)
$`q^H\overline{L}_k^n`$ $`=`$ $`q^{kn}\overline{L}_k^nq^H,`$
$`XL_k^n`$ $``$ $`q^{2(j+1)kn}L_k^nX=`$ (11)
$`\omega _{k1}\lambda q^{j+1n}L_{k1}^nq^H`$ $``$ $`\omega _n\lambda q^{j+2k}L_{n+1}^kq^H,`$
$`X\overline{L}_k^n`$ $``$ $`q^{k+n2(j+1)}\overline{L}_k^nX=`$ (12)
$`\omega _{n1}\lambda ^1q^{kj1}\overline{L}_{n1}^kq^H`$ $``$ $`\omega _k\lambda ^1q^{nj2}\overline{L}_{k+1}^nq^H,`$
where $`\lambda e^v`$ .

These commutation relations can be used to prove (1). However, this way is rather difficult, and we chose another one. Equations (10) and (11) show that elements of the monodromy matrix $`L`$ are transformed under the quantum group like a composition of two representations of it. We therefore introduce a new algebra (which is just the Zamolodchikov algebra) such that each element $`L_n^m`$ or $`\overline{L}_n^m`$ is a product of two generators and Eq-s. (2),(10) and (11) follow from the defining relations of this new algebra. Rewriting the Sklyanin transfer matrix $`t_{p/2}(u)`$ in terms of the generators of the new algebra we can easily prove our main statement (1).

## 6 $`L_n^m`$ and $`\overline{L}_n^m`$ as a composition of elements of the Zamolodchikov algebra.

We introduce the Zamolodchikov algebra generated by the operators $`\theta _j^n(u)`$, $`\theta _n^j(u)`$, $`\overline{\theta }_j^n(u)`$ and $`\overline{\theta }_n^j(u)`$ ,where $`j`$ is any positive half integer and $`n=1,\mathrm{},2j+1`$,with the following defining relations:

$`(R_{j_1j_2})_{bm}^{an}(uv)\theta _{j_1}^b(u)\theta _{j_2}^m(v)`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _{j_1j_2}(uv)\theta _{j_2}^n(v)\theta _{j_1}^a(u),`$
$`(R_{j_1j_2})_{an}^{bm}(uv)\theta _m^{j_2}(v)\theta _b^{j_1}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _{j_1j_2}(uv)\theta _a^{j_1}(u)\theta _n^{j_2}(v),`$ (13)
$`\theta _a^{j_1}(u)\theta _{j_2}^m(v)`$ $`=`$ $`\tau _{j_1j_2}(uv)\theta _{j_2}^m(v)\theta _a^{j_1}(u),`$
$`(R_{j_1j_2})_{bm}^{an}(uv)\overline{\theta }_{j_2}^m(v)\overline{\theta }_{j_1}^b(u)`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _{j_1j_2}(uv)\overline{\theta }_{j_1}^a(u)\overline{\theta }_{j_2}^n(v),`$
$`(R_{j_1j_2})_{an}^{bm}(uv)\overline{\theta }_b^{j_1}(u)\overline{\theta }_m^{j_2}(v)`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _{j_1j_2}(uv)\overline{\theta }_n^{j_2}(v)\overline{\theta }_a^{j_1}(u),`$ (14)
$`\overline{\theta }_{j_2}^m(v)\overline{\theta }_a^{j_1}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`\tau _{j_1j_2}(uv)\overline{\theta }_a^{j_1}(u)\overline{\theta }_{j2}^m(v),`$
$`(R_{j_1j_2})_{bm}^{an}(u+v)\overline{\theta }_{j_2}^n(v)\theta _{j_1}^b(u)`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _{j_1j_2}(u+v)\theta _{j_1}^a(u)\overline{\theta }_{j_2}^m(v),`$
$`(R_{j_1j_2})_{an}^{bm}(u+v)\theta _b^{j1}(u)\overline{\theta }_n^{j2}(v)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\chi }_{j_1j_2}(u+v)\overline{\theta }_m^{j_2}(v)\theta _a^{j_1}(v),`$
$`\theta _{j1}^a(u)\overline{\theta }_n^{j_2}(v)`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _{j_1j_2}(u+v)\overline{\theta }_n^{j_2}(v)\theta _{j_1}^a(u),`$ (15)
$`\theta _n^{j_2}(v)\overline{\theta }_{j_1}^a(u)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\rho }_{j_1j_2}(u+v)\overline{\theta }_{j1}^a(u)\theta _n^{j2}(v),`$
where $`\varphi _{j_1j_2}`$, $`\tau _{j_1j_2}`$, $`\rho _{j_1j_2}`$ and $`\chi _{j_1j_2}`$ are some functions. These functions depend on the specific form of $`R_{j_1j_2}`$. For example $`\varphi _{j_1j_2}`$ is defined from the unitarity equation and is equal to the multiplier in the r.h.s. of this equation.We don’t know how to obtain the form of the three other fuctions in general case, but we can find the needed combination of them from the self-consistency requirement. The Zamolodchikov algebra is associative for arbitrary $`\varphi _{j_1j_2}`$, $`\tau _{j_1j_2}`$, $`\rho _{j_1j_2}`$ and $`\chi _{j_1j_2}`$ provided only that the $`R`$-matrix satisfies the triangle equation. A similar algebra was considered in .

It is easy to verify using (13)–(15) that if

$`(L_j)_b^a(u)`$ $`=`$ $`\theta _j^a(u)\theta _b^j(u),`$ (16)
$`(\overline{L}_j)_b^a(u)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\theta }_b^j(u)\overline{\theta }_j^a(u),`$
then $`L`$ and $`\overline{L}`$ satisfy the Yang–Baxter equations (2) and (3).

## 7 Transformation of $`\theta _n`$, $`\theta ^n`$, $`\overline{\theta }_n`$ and $`\overline{\theta }^n`$ under the quantum group action.

The following commutation relations between $`L_a^b`$ , $`\overline{L}_a^b`$ and the generators of the Zamolodchikov algebra,which follow from (13)–(16), are sufficient for our purpose:

$`R_{bm}^{an}(uv)L_c^b(u)\theta _j^m(v)`$ $`=`$ $`\theta _j^n(v)L_c^a(u)\varphi (uv),`$ (17)
$`R_{an}^{bm}(uv)\theta _m^j(v)L_b^c(u)`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi (uv)L_a^c(u)\theta _n^j(v),`$ (18)
$`R_{bm}^{an}(uv)\overline{\theta }_j^m(v)\overline{L}_c^b(u)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{L}_c^a(u)\overline{\theta }_j^n(v)\varphi (uv),`$ (19)
$`R_{an}^{bm}(uv)\overline{L}_b^c(u)\overline{\theta }_m^j(v)`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi (uv)\overline{\theta }_n^j(v)\overline{L}_a^c(u).`$ (20)
Here we write $`L_{\frac{1}{2}}`$ as just $`L`$ , $`R_{\frac{1}{2}j}`$ as $`R`$ and set$`\varphi (u)=\varphi _{\frac{1}{2}j}(u)\tau _{\frac{1}{2}j}(u)`$. We already know how to obtain the operator $`X`$ from $`L(u)`$. Having taken the limit $`u\pm \mathrm{}`$ we can obtain the commutation relation between $`X`$ and $`\theta `$. To do this we must know what the function $`\varphi (u)`$ is equal to. But the function $`\varphi (u)`$ depends on the function $`\tau _{\frac{1}{2}j}(u),`$which is unknown. Actually, we only need to know the behavior of $`\varphi (u)`$ in the limit $`u+\mathrm{}`$ .Taking this limit we obtain

$`q^H\theta _j^n(v)`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon (v)q^{nj1}\theta _j^n(v)q^H,`$
$`q^H\theta _j^n(v)`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon (v)q^{j+1n}\theta _j^n(v)q^H,`$
$`q^H\theta _n^j(v)`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon (v)^1q^{j+1n}\theta _n^j(v)q^H,`$
$`q^H\theta _n^j(v)`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon (v)^1q^{nj1}\theta _n^j(v)q^H,`$
where

$$\epsilon (v)\underset{u+\mathrm{}}{lim}(2\varphi (uv)e^{(uv+\eta /2)}).$$

It is obvious that these equations are self-consistent only if

$$\epsilon (v)=1.$$

Supposing that this is true we also obtain the commutation relations between $`X`$ and $`\theta `$,thus,

$`q^H\theta _j^n`$ $`=`$ $`q^{nj1}\theta _j^nq^H,`$
$`q^H\theta _n^j`$ $`=`$ $`q^{j+1n}\theta _n^jq^H,`$ (21)
$`q^H\overline{\theta }_j^n`$ $`=`$ $`q^{j+1n}\overline{\theta }_j^nq^H,`$
$`q^H\overline{\theta }_n^j`$ $`=`$ $`q^{nj1}\overline{\theta }_n^jq^H,`$
$`X\theta _j^nq^{j+1n}\theta _j^nX`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _n\lambda q\theta _j^{n+1}q^H,`$
$`X\theta _n^jq^{j+1n}\theta _n^jX`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _{n1}\lambda \theta _{n1}^jq^H,`$ (22)
$`X\overline{\theta }_j^nq^{nj1}\overline{\theta }_j^nX`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _{n1}\lambda ^1\overline{\theta }_j^{n1}q^H,`$
$`X\overline{\theta }_n^jq^{nj1}\overline{\theta }_n^jX`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _n\lambda ^1q^1\overline{\theta }_{n+1}^jq^H.`$
It is easy to verify that these formulas are consistent with (10)and (11) if (16) is taken into account.

## 8 New variables $`\psi `$.

We can make our formulas more convenient if we introduce the new variables $`\psi `$ by

$`\theta _j^n`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _j^nq^{nH},`$
$`\overline{\theta }_j^n`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\psi }_j^nq^{nH},`$ (23)
$`\theta _n^j`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _n^jq^{nH},`$
$`\overline{\theta }_n^j`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\psi }_n^jq^{nH},`$
$`X\psi _j^nq^{j+12n}\psi _j^nX`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _n\lambda q\psi _j^{n+1},`$
$`X\overline{\psi }_j^nq^{2nj1}\overline{\psi }_j^nX`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _{n1}\lambda ^1\overline{\psi }_j^{n1},`$ (24)
$`X\psi _n^jq^{j+12n}\psi _n^jX`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _{n1}\lambda \psi _{n1}^j,`$
$`X\overline{\psi }_n^jq^{2nj1}\overline{\psi }_n^jX`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _n\lambda ^1q^1\overline{\psi }_{n+1}^j.`$
## 9 Transfer matrix in the new variables.

We rewrite the Sklyanin transfer matrices in the new variables $`\psi `$. The result suggests that the transfer matrices consist of two other objects. Replacing the old variables with the new ones ,

$`(L_j)_k^n(\overline{L}_j)_k^n`$ $`=`$ $`\theta _j^n\theta _k^j\overline{\theta }_k^j\overline{\theta }_j^n`$
$`=`$ $`q^{k(j+1k)}q^{n(j+1n)}\psi _j^n\psi _k^j\overline{\psi }_k^j\overline{\psi }_j^n,`$
we obtain

$`t_j(u)={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{2j+1}{}}}\lambda ^{2n}q^{(n+1)(j+1n)}\psi _j^n\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{2j+1}{}}}\lambda ^{2k}q^{k(j+1k)}\psi _k^j\overline{\psi }_k^j\right)\overline{\psi }_j^n`$ (25)
(here and after $`\lambda =e^u`$). We see that the transfer matrix consists of two independent structures. If we set

$`g_j^{}(u)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{2j+1}{}}}\lambda ^{2k}q^{k(j+1k)}\psi _k^j\overline{\psi }_k^j,`$ (26)
$`g_j^+(u)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{2j+1}{}}}\lambda ^{2n}q^{(n+1)(j+1n)}\psi _j^n\overline{\psi }_j^n,`$
then the transfer matrix has the form

$$t_j(u)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{2j+1}{}}\lambda ^{2n}q^{(n+1)(j+1n)}\psi _j^ng_j^{}(u)\overline{\psi }_j^n.$$

The new objects $`g_j^{}(u)`$ and $`g_j^+(u)`$ are remarkable because they are separately invariant with respect to the quantum algebra $`U_q(sl(2))`$,

$$[g_j^\pm (u),U_q(sl(2))]=0.$$

We prove this formula after introducing of the $`\mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X}`$ operator.

## 10  The$`\mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X}`$ operator.

It is convenient to introduce a linear operator( we call it the $`\mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X}`$operator) such that the following properties hold

$`\mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X}(\mathrm{\Psi }+\mathrm{\Psi }^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X}(\mathrm{\Psi })+\mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X}(\mathrm{\Psi }^{})`$ (27)
and also if $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ have definite degrees,

$`\mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X}(\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X}(\mathrm{\Psi })\mathrm{\Psi }^{}+q^{\mathrm{deg}(\mathrm{\Psi })}\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X}(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}),`$
$`\mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X}(\mathrm{\Psi })`$ $`=`$ $`X\mathrm{\Psi }q^{\mathrm{deg}(\mathrm{\Psi })}\mathrm{\Psi }X,`$ (28)
$`\mathrm{deg}(\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{deg}(\mathrm{\Psi })+\mathrm{deg}(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}).`$
By definition we set

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}\mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X}(\psi _j^n)& =& X\psi _j^nq^{j+12n}\psi _j^nX& =& \omega _n\lambda q\psi _j^{n+1}& \\ \mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X}(\overline{\psi }_j^n)& =& X\overline{\psi }_j^nq^{2nj1}\overline{\psi }_j^nX& =& \omega _{n1}\lambda ^1\overline{\psi }_j^{n1}& \\ \mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X}(\psi _n^j)& =& X\psi _n^jq^{j+12n}\psi _n^jX& =& \omega _{n1}\lambda \psi _{n1}^j& \\ \mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X}(\overline{\psi }_n^j)& =& X\overline{\psi }_n^jq^{2nj1}\overline{\psi }_n^jX& =& \omega _n\lambda ^1q^1\overline{\psi }_{n+1}^j& \end{array}$$

(compare with (24)). We define the degrees of these operators by

$`\mathrm{deg}(\psi _j^n)`$ $`=`$ $`j+12n,`$
$`\mathrm{deg}(\overline{\psi }_j^n)`$ $`=`$ $`2nj1,`$ (29)
$`\mathrm{deg}(\psi _n^j)`$ $`=`$ $`j+12n,`$
$`\mathrm{deg}(\overline{\psi }_n^j)`$ $`=`$ $`2nj1,`$
and also

$`\mathrm{deg}(X^N\psi _j^n)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{deg}(\psi _j^n)2N,`$
$`\mathrm{deg}(X^N\overline{\psi }_j^n)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{deg}(\overline{\psi }_j^n)2N,`$ (30)
$`\mathrm{deg}(X^N\psi _n^j)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{deg}(\psi _n^j)+2N,`$
$`\mathrm{deg}(X^N\overline{\psi }_n^j)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{deg}(\overline{\psi }_n^j)+2N.`$
Pay your attention that applying the operator $`X`$ to $`\psi `$ and $`\overline{\psi }`$ with upper index $`n`$ decrease their degrees and conversely applying to the ones with lower index $`n`$ increase their degrees. It is now easy to show that $`\mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X}(g_j^\pm (u))=0`$.

Indeed,

$`\mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X}g_j^{}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{2j+1}{}}}\lambda ^{2k}q^{k(j+1k)}\left(\mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X}(\psi _k^j)\overline{\psi }_k^j+q^{j+12k}\psi _k^j\mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X}(\overline{\psi }_k^j)\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{2j+1}{}}}\lambda ^{2k}q^{k(j+1k)}\left(\omega _{k1}\lambda \psi _{k1}^j\overline{\psi }_k^jq^{j+12k}\omega _k\lambda ^1q^1\psi _k^j\overline{\psi }_{k+1}^j\right)`$
$`=`$ $`0.`$
Because $`\mathrm{deg}(g_j^\pm (u))=0`$, we have $`Xg_j^\pm (u)=g_j^\pm (u)X`$. In fact, even more general statement

$$[g_j^\pm (u),U_q(sl(2))]=0$$

is true.

## 11 Properties of the $`\mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X}`$ operator.

Using properties (27) and (28) of the operator $`\mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X}`$ it is easy to prove the identities

$`(\mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X})^N(\psi ^A\overline{\psi }^B)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}}q^{n(\mathrm{deg}(\psi ^A)+nN)}C_n^N(\mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X})^{Nn}(\psi ^A)(\mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X})^n(\overline{\psi }^B),`$
$`(\mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X})^N(\psi _A\overline{\psi }_B)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}}q^{n(\mathrm{deg}(\psi ^A)n+N)}C_n^N(\mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X})^{Nn}(\psi _A)(\mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X})^n(\overline{\psi }_B),`$
$`(\mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X})^N(\psi ^A)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}}(1)^nq^{n(\mathrm{deg}(\psi ^A)+1N)}C_n^NX^{Nn}\psi ^AX^n,`$ (31)
$`(\mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X})^N(\psi _A)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}}(1)^nq^{n(\mathrm{deg}(\psi _A)1+N)}C_n^NX^{Nn}\psi _AX^n,`$
where

$$C_n^N=\frac{[N]_q!}{[n]_q![Nn]_q!}$$

is the $`q`$-binomial coefficient. We can observe a light difference in these formulas for $`\psi `$ and $`\overline{\psi }`$ with the upper and lower indexes.

## 12 Proof of the $`\mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X}`$ theorem in terms of $`\theta `$ operators.

Using the definition of the operator $`\mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X}`$, we can obtain

$`\psi _j^n=`$ $`a_n(\mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X})^{n1}(\psi _j^1),`$ (32)
$`\psi _n^j=`$ $`b_n(\mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X})^{2j+1n}(\psi _{2j+1}^j),`$
$`\overline{\psi }_j^n=`$ $`c_n(\mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X})^{2j+1n}(\overline{\psi }_j^{2j+1}),`$ (33)
$`\overline{\psi }_n^j=`$ $`d_n(\mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X})^{n1}(\overline{\psi }_1^j),`$
where

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}a_n=& _{k=1}^{n1}(\lambda ^1q^1\omega _n^1),& & b_n=& _{k=1}^{2j+1n}(\lambda ^1\omega _{2j+1k}^1),& \\ c_n=& _{k=1}^{2j+1n}(\lambda \omega _{2j+1k}^1),& & d_n=& _{k=1}^{n1}(\lambda q\omega _n^1).& \end{array}$$

It is easy to verify that

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}a_nc_n=& (1)^{n1}\omega ^1q^{1n}\lambda ^{2(j+1n)},& & & & \\ b_nd_n=& (1)^{n1}\omega ^1q^{n1}\lambda ^{2(nj1)},& & & & \end{array}$$

where

$$\omega =\underset{k=1}{\overset{2j}{}}\omega _k.$$

Therefore,

$`\psi _n^j\overline{\psi }_n^j`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{n1}\omega ^1q^{n1}\lambda ^{2(nj1)}(\mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X})^{2j+1n}(\psi _{2j+1}^j)(\mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X})^{n1}(\overline{\psi }_1^j),`$
$`\psi _j^n\overline{\psi }_j^n`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{n1}\omega ^1q^{1n}\lambda ^{2(j+1n)}(\mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X})^{n1}(\psi _j^1)(\mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X})^{2j+1n}(\overline{\psi }_j^{2j+1}).`$
Inserting this in the expression for $`g_j^{}(u)`$, we obtain

$`g_j^{}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{2j+1}{}}}\lambda ^{2k}q^{k(j+1k)}\psi _k^j\overline{\psi }_k^j`$
$`=`$ $`\omega ^1\lambda ^{2(j+1)}q^j{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{2j}{}}}(1)^nq^{n(jn)}(\mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X})^{2jn}(\psi _{2j+1}^j)(\mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X})^n(\overline{\psi }_1^j).`$
It makes sense to compare this with the similar formula

$$(\mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X})^{2j}(\psi _{2j+1}^j\overline{\psi }_1^j)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{2j}{}}q^{(2j+1)n}q^{n(jn)}C_n^{2j}(\mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X})^{2jn}(\psi _{2j+1}^j)(\mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X})^n(\overline{\psi }_1^j).$$

Taking into account that if $`q^{p+1}=1`$ then $`C_n^p=1`$ and $`q^{\pm (p+1)n}=(1)^n`$, we obtain the conclusion

$`g_{p/2}^{}(u)=\omega ^1\lambda ^{2(p/2+1)}q^{p/2}(\mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X})^p(\psi _{p+1}^{p/2}\overline{\psi }_1^{p/2}).`$ (34)
Similarly, we have

$`g_j^+(u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{2j+1}{}}}\lambda ^{2n}q^{(n+1)(j+1n)}\psi _j^n\overline{\psi }_j^n`$
$`=`$ $`(1)^{2j}\omega ^1\lambda ^{2(j+1)}q^{j(2j+1)}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{2j}{}}}(1)^nq^{n(j+n)}(\mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X})^{2jn}(\psi _j^1)(\mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X})^n(\overline{\psi }_j^{2j+1})`$
for $`g_j^+(u)`$; as above if $`q^{p+1}=1`$, we obtain

$$g_{p/2}^+(u)=(1)^p\omega ^1\lambda ^{2(p/2+1)}q^{p(p+1)/2}(\mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X})^p(\psi _{p/2}^1\overline{\psi }_{p/2}^{p+1}).$$

If $`q^{p+1}=1`$,we can use (12) and $`\mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X}(g_j^{}(u))=0`$ to rewrite formula (25) for the transfer matrix $`t_{p/2}(u)`$ if as

$`t_{p/2}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X})^p(G_{p/2}(u)),`$ (36)
where we introduce the notation

$`G_{p/2}(u)(1)^p\omega ^1\lambda ^{2(p/2+1)}q^{p(p+1)/2}\left(\psi _{p/2}^1g_{p/2}^{}(u)\overline{\psi }_{p/2}^{p+1}\right)`$ (37)
Because of property (31) of $`adx`$ and because $`q^{p+1}=1`$ implies $`C_n^p=1`$, we can also rewrite (36) as

$`t_{p/2}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{p}{}}}X^{pn}G_{p/2}(u)X^n.`$ (38)
We have thus proved in fact our main result( the adX theorem). In the next section we return from the ”virtual” variables $`\psi `$ and $`\overline{\psi }`$ to the variables $`L`$ and $`\overline{L}`$.

## 13 Return to $`L`$ and $`\overline{L}`$.

By returning from the variables $`\psi `$ and $`\overline{\psi }`$ to the variables $`L`$ and $`\overline{L}`$ in (37), we can easily show that

$$G_{p/2}(u)=(1)^p\omega ^1q^{p^2/2}\underset{k=1}{\overset{p+1}{}}\left(\lambda ^{2(p/2+1k)}(L_{p/2})_k^1(\overline{L}_{p/2})_k^{p+1}\right)q^{pH}$$

Although we have proved the main theorem using intermediate calculations with the ”virtual” operators $`\theta `$, which somehow do not exist, this proof is nevertheless valid . Indeed, to prove Eq.(38), we could permute the operator $`X`$ with the entire $`L`$ and $`\overline{L}`$ to the right without splitting $`L`$ and $`\overline{L}`$ to the operators $`\theta `$ . Thus acting, we would not meet these operators at all, but the result of this permutation must be the same( and Eq. (38) must be fulfilled) because of the associativity of the Zamolodchikov algebra.

This completes the proof of the $`\mathrm{ad}\mathrm{X}`$ theorem.

## 14 Acknowledgments.

We are grateful to M. Lashkevich and A. Odesskii for usefull discussions and also to W. Everett fo the editorial assistance.This work is supported in part by RBRF-00-15-96579,98-02-16687,99-01-01169,INTAS–97-1312.


format: text

text:
# Thermo-refractive noise in gravitational wave antennae

## I Introduction

We have shown in our previous article  that thermodynamical fluctuations of temperature in mirrors (test masses) of LIGO-type gravitational wave antenna  are transformed due to the thermal expansion coefficient $`\alpha =(1/l)(dl/dT)`$ into additional (thermoelastic) noise which may be a serious "barrier" limiting sensitivity. This noise is caused in fact by random fluctuations of the coordinate averaged over the mirror’s surface. The spectral density of this random coordinate displacement may be presented for infinite test mass in the following form *** This result was refined for the case of finite test masses by Yu. T. Liu and K. S. Thorne . However the difference from our calculation is only several percents for the planned sizes of test masses, and hence we use here much more compact expression (1). :

$`S_{x,\alpha }^{\mathrm{TE}}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{\sqrt{2\pi }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa T^2\alpha ^2(1+\sigma )^2\lambda ^{}}{(\rho C)^2r_0^3\omega ^2}}.`$ (1)
Here $`\kappa `$ is the Boltzmann constant, $`T`$ is temperature, $`\sigma `$ is Poison ratio, $`\lambda ^{}`$ is thermal conductivity, $`\rho `$ is density and $`C`$ is specific heat capacity, $`r_0`$ is the radius of the spot of laser beam over which the averaging of the fluctuations is performed. This noise is of nonlinear origin as the nonzero value of $`\alpha `$ is due to the anharmonisity of the lattice.

The goal of this article is to present the results of the analysis of another additional (and also of nonlinear origin) effect which may be comparable with other known noise mechanisms limiting the sensitivity. Qualitatively this effect is may be understood in the following way. The laser beam “extracts” the information not only about the change of the length of the antenna produced by gravitational wave but also about the fluctuations of position of mirrors’ surfaces averaged over the beam spot. These fluctuations lead to phase noise in the reflected optical field. However the phase noise may be produced by another effect. High reflectivity of the mirrors is provided by multilayer coatings which consist of alternating sequences of quarter-wavelength dielectric layers having refraction indices $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$. The most frequently used pairs of layers are $`TiO_2SiO_2`$ and $`Ta_2O_5SiO_2`$. margin:   *  While reflecting the optical wave "penetrates" in the coating on certain depth. This depth is of the order of the optical thickness of one pair of layers $`l<1\mu `$. If the values of $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$ depend on temperature $`T`$ (thermo-refractive factor $`\beta =dn/dT`$ is nonzero) then thermodynamical fluctuations of temperature lead to fluctuations of optical thickness of these layers and hence to the phase noise in the reflected wave. Though the thickness $`l`$ of the working layer is small, the coefficient $`\beta `$ is usually significantly larger than $`\alpha `$ (both have the same dimensions). For fused silica ($`SiO_2`$) $`\alpha =5\times 10^7K^1`$ and $`\beta =1.45\times 10^5K^1`$ (i.e. 30 times larger than $`\alpha `$). This phase noise may be evidently easily recalculated in terms of equivalent fluctuations of the surface and consequently compared with the spectral sensitivity of the antenna.

We have analyzed also the photo-thermal refractive shot noise: due to random absorption of optical photons, the random fluctuations of temperature in the surface layer of the mirror take place, producing fluctuations of refractive indices of the coating and therefore phase fluctuations of reflected light wave (this effect is similar to photo-thermal shot noise, analyzed in ). However, this effect is numerically much smaller than thermo-refractive noise — that is why we do not present here the detailed analysis of it.

## II Thermo-refractive noise

The theory of reflection of light from multilayer dielectrical coating is well known (see for example ). Using traditional approach we may recalculate the phase shift $`\delta \varphi `$ into equivalent displacement $`\delta x`$ of mirror (see Appendix A):

$`\delta x={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4\pi }}\delta \varphi =\overline{u}\lambda \beta _{\mathrm{eff}},`$ (2)
$`\beta _{\mathrm{eff}}={\displaystyle \frac{n_2^2\beta _1+n_1^2\beta _2}{4(n_1^2n_2^2)}}.`$ (3)
Here $`\overline{u}`$ is the fluctuation of averaged temperature, $`\beta _1=dn_1/dT`$, $`\beta _2=dn_2/dT`$ . It is important to note, that effective coating thickness is much smaller than the characteristic length of diffusive heat transfer: $`la/\sqrt{\omega }`$ ($`a`$ is temperature conductivity, $`\omega `$ is the frequency of observation which is of order $`100Hz`$ for laser gravitational wave antenna). Therefore we may consider in our calculations that fluctuations of temperature are correlated in the layers.

To calculate thermodynamical fluctuations of temperature $`u(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ in the surface layers we use Langevin approach and introduce fluctuational thermal sources $`F(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ added to the right part of the equation of thermal conductivity:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{u}{t}}a^2\mathrm{\Delta }u=F(\stackrel{}{r},t),a^2={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^{}}{\rho C}}.`$ (4)
This approach was described and verified in  (see all the details over there). As in  we replace the mirror by half-space: $`\mathrm{}<x<\mathrm{},\mathrm{}<y<\mathrm{},0z<\mathrm{}`$ with the boundary condition of thermo-isolation on surface $`z=0`$. We may now calculate the spectrum of temperature fluctuations:

$`u(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{}{k}d\omega }{(2\pi )^4}}u(\omega ,\stackrel{}{k})e^{i\omega t+i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{r}},`$ (5)
$`u(\omega ,\stackrel{}{k})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{F(\stackrel{}{k},\omega )}{a^2(\stackrel{}{k})^2+i\omega }},`$ (6)
$`F(\stackrel{}{k},\omega )F^{}(\stackrel{}{k}_1,\omega _1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\kappa T^2\lambda ^{}}{(\rho C)^2}}(2\pi )^4|\stackrel{}{k}|^2\delta (\omega \omega _1)\times `$ (7)
$`\times `$ $`\delta (k_xk_{x1})\delta (k_yk_{y1})\times `$ (8)
$`\times `$ $`\left[\delta (k_zk_{z1})+\delta (k_z+k_{z1})\right].`$ (9)
The thermodynamical fluctuations of temperature $`\overline{u}`$ averaged over the volume $`V=\pi r_0^2l`$ may be presented in the following form:

$`\overline{u}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi r_0^2l}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x𝑑y{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑zu(\stackrel{}{r},t)e^{(x^2+y^2)/r_0^2}e^{z/l}=`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{}{k}d\omega }{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{F(\stackrel{}{k},\omega )e^{i\omega t}}{a^2|\stackrel{}{k}|^2+i\omega }}e^{(k_x^2+k_y^2)r_0^2/4}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1ik_zl}},`$ (11)
From this expression and from (7) we find immediately the spectral density $`S_u(\omega )`$ of fluctuations of the averaged temperature:

$`S_u(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`2\times {\displaystyle \frac{2\kappa T^2\lambda ^{}}{(\rho C)^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi k_{}dk_{}}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk_z}{2\pi }}\times `$ (12)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_z^2+k_{}^2}{a^4(k_z^2+k_{}^2)^2+\omega ^2}}e^{k_{}^2r_0^2/2}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+1)}{1+k_z^2l^2}}=`$ (13)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}\kappa T^2}{\pi r_0^2\sqrt{\omega \lambda ^{}\rho C}}}`$ (14)
Here $`k_{}^2=k_x^2+k_y^2`$. The first term $`2`$ appears because as in  we use “one-sided” spectral density, defined only for positive frequencies, which is connected with the correlation function $`u(t)u(t+\tau )`$ by the formula $`S_u(\omega )=2_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau u(t)u(t+\tau )\mathrm{cos}(\omega \tau ).`$ The term $`(1+1)`$ appears due to two $`\delta `$-functions in square brackets in (7). For the frequency of observation $`\omega 2\pi \times 100\text{s}^1`$ characteristic length $`a/\sqrt{\omega }50\mu `$ (we used for the estimates constants for fused silica), so that $`la/\sqrt{\omega }r_0`$. Taking into account that $`k_{}1/r_0\sqrt{\omega }/a`$ we may consider the first denominator as constant while integrating over $`k_{}`$. In the same way $`k_z1/l\sqrt{\omega }/a`$ and while integrating over $`k_z`$ we may consider the second denominator as unity. It is interesting that in this model the spectral density $`S_u(\omega )`$ does not depend on $`l`$.

This spectral density may be recalculated to the spectral density of equivalent fluctuations of surface displacement to compare it with other known sources of noise:

$`S_{x,\beta }^{TD}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}\beta _{eff}^2\lambda ^2\kappa T^2}{\pi r_0^2\sqrt{\omega \rho C\lambda ^{}}}},`$ (15)
## III Numerical estimates

For the numerical estimates we assumed that the multilayer coating consists from alternating pairs of layers: margin:   *  $`TiO_2`$ ($`n_1=2.2`$) and $`SiO_2`$ ($`n_2=1.45`$), or $`Ta_2O_5`$ ($`n_1=2.2`$) and $`SiO_2`$ ($`n_2=1.45`$). The values of $`\beta `$ for $`TiO_2`$ and for $`Ta_2O_5`$ were found in .

We want now to compare the thermo-refractive fluctuations with thermoelastic noise (1) and noise associated with the mirrors’ material losses described in the model of structural damping (we denote it as Brownian motion of the surface). In this model the angle of losses $`\varphi `$ does not depend on frequency and for its spectral density the following formula is valid for infinite test mass :

$`S_x^\mathrm{B}(\omega )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\kappa T}{\omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{(1\sigma ^2)}{\sqrt{2\pi }Er_o}}\varphi ,`$ (16)
where $`E`$ is Young modulus, and $`\sigma `$ is Poison ratio.

The spectrsal sensitivity of gravitational wave antenna to the perturbation of metric $`h(\omega )`$ may be recalculated from noise spectral density of displacement $`x`$ using the following formula:

$$h(\omega )=\frac{\sqrt{2(S_{x,r_{01}}(\omega )+S_{x,r_{02}}(\omega ))}}{L},$$
(17)
where we used the fact that antenna has two arms (with length $`L`$) with two mirrors the fluctuations on which are averaged over the radii $`r_{01}`$ and $`r_{02}`$.

The LIGO-II antenna will approach the level of SQL, so we also compare the noise limited sensitivity to this limit in spectral form :

$$h_{\mathrm{SQL}}(\omega )=\sqrt{\frac{8\mathrm{}}{m\omega ^2L^2}}.$$
(18)
For the calculations we used the set of parameters given in Appendix B (the same as in ) plus  margin:   *

$`r_{01}`$ $`=`$ $`3.6/\sqrt{2}\text{cm},r_{02}=4.6/\sqrt{2}\text{cm},`$
$`n_1`$ $`=`$ $`2.2,\beta _2=410^5\text{K}^1(TiO_2),`$
$`n_1`$ $`=`$ $`2.2,\beta _2=610^5\text{K}^1(Ta_2O_5),`$
$`n_2`$ $`=`$ $`1.45,\beta _1=1.510^5\text{K}^1(SiO_2),`$
We used figures from  for ion plating method only, for other methods of deposition the value of $`\beta `$ may be two times larger. In figure 1 we plot all previously known noises  together with the new one.margin:   *  We see that thermorefractive noise limitation is close to SQL for the frequences near $`200`$ Hz.

## Conclusion

Summing up, we may say that thermo-refractive effect is not small and it must be seriously considered in interferometric gravitational antennae (projects LIGO-II and especially LIGO-III, where overcomming of the SQL is planned). It is also important that this effect depends slower on the radii of the beam-spots than thermo-elastic noise and thus may become dominating for larger $`r_0`$ planned in LIGO-II and LIGO-III.

## Acknowledgments

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY9800097, the Russian Foundation for Basic Research Grant #96-15-96780, and the Russian Ministry of Science and Technology.

## A

In this appendix we give the calculation of coefficient of reflection of light wave from multilayer coatings consisting of infinite sequences of pairs of quarter-wavelength dielectrical layers $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$.

Let the refraction index of odd layers fluctuates on $`\mathrm{\Delta }n_1`$ and the refraction index of even layers on $`\mathrm{\Delta }n_2`$. One may reformulate this problem into the problem for distributed long line . The equivalent impedance $`Z`$ of this system of layers may be deduced using the following statement: the addition of two layers does not change the value of $`Z`$.

Voltage $`V_2`$ and current $`I_2`$ at the end of second layer may be found from input voltage $`V_0`$ and current $`I_0`$ using transformation matrix $`M`$ (, formula (3.9.27)):

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}V_2\\ I_2\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`M\times \left(\begin{array}{c}V_0\\ I_0\end{array}\right),M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_{11}& M_{12}\\ M_{21}& M_{22}\end{array}\right),`$
$`M_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi _1\mathrm{cos}\varphi _2{\displaystyle \frac{n_1}{n_2}}\mathrm{sin}\varphi _1\mathrm{sin}\varphi _2,`$
$`M_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`i\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\varphi _1\mathrm{cos}\varphi _2}{n_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\varphi _2\mathrm{cos}\varphi _1}{n_2}}\right),`$
$`M_{21}`$ $`=`$ $`i\left(n_2\mathrm{sin}\varphi _2\mathrm{cos}\varphi _1+n_1\mathrm{sin}\varphi _1\mathrm{cos}\varphi _2\right),`$
$`M_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi _1\mathrm{cos}\varphi _2{\displaystyle \frac{n_2}{n_1}}\mathrm{sin}\varphi _1\mathrm{sin}\varphi _2,`$
$`M`$ $``$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{n_1}{n_2}& i\left(\frac{\phi _2}{n_1}+\frac{\phi _1}{n_2}\right)\\ i\left(n_2\phi _1+n_1\phi _2\right)& \frac{n_2}{n_1}\end{array}\right)`$
Here we take into account that for quarter-wavelength layers $`\varphi _1=\pi /2+\phi _1,\varphi _2=\pi /2+\phi _2`$ and therefore one may use approximation $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi _11,\mathrm{sin}\varphi _21,\mathrm{cos}\varphi _1\phi _1,\mathrm{cos}\varphi _2\phi _2`$.

Now we put that $`I_0=YV_0`$ and $`I_2=YV_2`$ ($`Y=1/Z`$ is generalized conductivity of the sequence of layers) and obtain two equations:

$`V_2`$ $`=`$ $`V_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{n_1}{n_2}}+iY\left({\displaystyle \frac{\phi _2}{n_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _1}{n_2}}\right)\right),`$ (A3)
$`YV_2`$ $`=`$ $`V_0\left(i\left(n_2\phi _1+n_1\phi _2\right)Y{\displaystyle \frac{n_2}{n_1}}\right).`$ (A4)
Solving these equations we find conductivity $`Y`$ and reflection coefficient $`K`$:

$`Y`$ $``$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{n_1n_2}{n_1^2n_2^2}}\left(n_2\phi _1+n_1\phi _2\right),`$ (A5)
$`K`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Y1}{Y+1}}12i{\displaystyle \frac{n_1n_2}{n_1^2n_2^2}}\left(n_2\phi _1+n_1\phi _2\right)`$ (A6)
From this point it is easy to obtain (2,3), assuming

$$\phi _1=\frac{\pi }{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }n_1}{n_1},\phi _2=\frac{\pi }{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }n_2}{n_2}$$

## B Parameters

$`\omega `$ $`=`$ $`2\pi \times 100\text{s}^1,T=300\text{K},`$
$`m`$ $`=`$ $`=3\times 10^4\text{ g},\lambda =1.06\mu ,L=4\times 10^5\text{cm};;`$
Fused silica:
$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`5.5\times 10^7\text{K}^1,\lambda ^{}=1.4\times 10^5{\displaystyle \frac{\text{erg}}{\text{cm s K}}},`$
$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`2.2{\displaystyle \frac{\text{g}}{\text{cm}^3}},C=6.7\times 10^6{\displaystyle \frac{\text{erg}}{\text{g K}}},`$
$`E`$ $`=`$ $`7.2\times 10^{11}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{erg}}{\text{cm}^3}},\sigma =0.17,\varphi =5\times 10^8;`$
Sapphire:
$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`5.0\times 10^6\text{K}^1,\lambda ^{}=4.0\times 10^6{\displaystyle \frac{\text{erg}}{\text{cm s K}}},`$
$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`4.0{\displaystyle \frac{\text{g}}{\text{cm}^3}},C=7.9\times 10^6{\displaystyle \frac{\text{erg}}{\text{g K}}},`$
$`E`$ $`=`$ $`4\times 10^{12}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{erg}}{\text{cm}^3}},\sigma =0.29,\varphi =3\times 10^9.`$


text:
# Untitled Document

Implications of radion-higgs couplings for high energy

scattering in the Randall-Sundrum model

Uma Mahanta

Mehta Research Institute

Chhatnag Road, Jhusi

Allahabad, India

Abstract

In this report we derive the couplings of the Randall-Sundrum radion to the standard model higgs boson. We then use these couplings to determine the J=0 partial wave amplitude for the process $`hhh\varphi `$. We find that at very high energies (i.e. $`sm_h^2,m_\varphi ^2`$) the s wave partial wave unitarity is violated if $`m_h>m_c\sqrt{16\pi \varphi v}`$ where $`\varphi `$ is the radion vev. Interestingly this bound is independent of the radion mass to the leading order. We also consider the high energy behaviour of the transition amplitudes for some other processes in the RS scenario and compare them with their SM behaviour.

Recently several radical proposals based on extra dimensions have been put forward to explain the large hierarchy between the Planck scale and the weak scale. Among them the Randall-Sundrum RS model  is most interesting because it proposes a five dimensional world with a non-factorizable metric

$$ds^2=e^{2k\pi r_c}\eta ^{\mu \nu }dx_\mu dx_\nu r_c^2d\theta ^2.$$
$`(1)`$
Here $`r_c`$ measures the size of the extra dimension which is an $`\frac{S^1}{Z_2}`$ orbifold. $`x^\mu `$ are the coordinates of the four dimensional space-time. $`\pi \theta \pi `$ is the coordinate of the extra dimension with $`\theta `$ and $`\theta `$ identified. Two branes extending in the $`x_\mu `$ or space time direction are placed at the orbifold fixed points $`\theta =0`$ and $`\theta =\pi `$. k ia a mass parameter of the order of the fundamental five dimensional Planck mass M. Randall and Sundrum showed that any field with a mass parameter $`m_0`$ in the fundamental five dimensional theory gets an effective four dimensional mass given by $`m=m_0e^{k\pi r_c}`$. Thus for $`kr_c12`$ the weak scale is generated from the Planck scale by the exponential warp factor of the model.

In the original proposal of Randall and Sundrum the compactification radius was determined by the vacuum expectation value (vev) of a scalar field $`T(x)`$. However the modulus field $`T(x)`$ was massless and therefore its vev was not stabilized by some dynamics. Goldberger and Wise  showed that by introducing a scalar field in the bulk with interactions localized on the two branes it is possible to generate a potential for $`T(x)`$. They also showed that this potential can be adjusted to yield a minimum at $`kr_c12`$ without any extreme fine tuning of parameters.

In the Randall-Sundrum model the SM fileds are assumed to be localized on the visible brane at $`\theta =\pi `$. Howvever the SM action is modified due to the exponential warp factor. Small fluctuations of the modulus field $`T(x)`$ about its vev $`r_c`$ then gives rise to non-trivial couplings of the modulus field with the SM fields. It was shown in Ref. that small fluctuations in the radion field $`\widehat{\varphi }`$ couples with the SM fields on the visible brane through the Lagrangian

$$L_I=\frac{T_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }}{\varphi }\widehat{\varphi }.$$
$`(2)`$
Here $`T_\mu ^\mu `$ is the trace of the energy momentum tensor of the SM fields localized on the visible brane. $`\widehat{\varphi }`$ is a small fluctuation of the radion field from its vev and is given by $`\varphi =fe^{k\pi T(x)}=\varphi +\widehat{\varphi }`$. $`\varphi =fe^{k\pi r_c}`$ is the vev of $`\varphi `$ and f is a mass parameter of the order of M.

In this report shall derive the couplings of the radion field with the SM higgs field in the linearized approximation. We shall then use these couplings to calculate the transition amplitude for the process $`hhh\varphi `$ at very high energies i.e. when $`sm_h^2,m_\varphi ^2`$. By requiring the $`J=0`$ partial wave amplitude for this process satisfies the unitarity constraint we then derive an upper bound on the higgs mass. Interestingly this unitarity bound on the higgs mass is independent of the radion mass to leading order. The subleading terms has a dependence on $`\frac{m_\varphi ^2}{s}`$ but it is only logarthmic and it vanishes as $`s\mathrm{}`$. The reasons behind considering the process $`hhh\varphi `$ are the following:

i) This process does not occur in the SM.

ii) The transition amplitude for this process is free from bad high energy behaviour and leads to a unitarity bound on $`m_h`$ that is independent of $`m_\varphi `$.

iii) It does not receive any contribution from the tower of Kaluza-Klein modes of the graviton and the stabilizing bulk scalar. The transition amplitude for this process is therefore simple to compute and is free from the uncertainties associated with processes that receive contribution from the tower of Kaluza-Klein modes of the graviton.

The couplings of the radion field to the SM higgs field localized on the brane at $`\theta =\pi `$ is completely determined by general covariance. The action for the SM higgs field in the Randall-Sundrum model is given by

$$S=d^4x\sqrt{g_v}[\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \nu }_\mu h_\nu hV(h)].$$
$`(3)`$
Here $`g^{\mu \nu }`$ is the induced metric on the visible brane. In the abscence of graviton fluctuations about the background metric it is given by $`g^{\mu \nu }=e^{2k\pi T(x)}\eta ^{\mu \nu }=(\frac{\varphi }{f})^2\eta ^{\mu \nu }`$ where $`\eta ^{\mu \nu }`$ is the Minkowski metric. $`\sqrt{g_v}=\sqrt{det(g_v)}=e^{4k\pi T(x)}=(\frac{\varphi }{f})^4`$. The tree level higgs potential $`V(h)`$ is given by

$$V(h)=\frac{\lambda }{4}(h^4+4h^3v+4h^2v^2).$$
$`(4)`$
The mass of the higgs calar can be determined from the above potential and is given by $`m_h^2=2\lambda v^2`$. The couplings of the RS radion to the higgs field is therefore given by

$$S=d^4x[\frac{1}{2}\eta ^{\mu \nu }(\frac{\varphi }{f})^2_\mu h_\nu h\frac{\lambda }{4}(\frac{\varphi }{f})^4(h^4+4h^3v+4h^2v^2)].$$
$`(5)`$
Rescaling h and v according to $`h\frac{f}{\varphi }h`$ and $`v\frac{f}{\varphi }v`$ the canonically normalized action becomes

$$S=d^4x[\frac{1}{2}\eta ^{\mu \nu }(\frac{\varphi }{\varphi })^2_\mu h_\nu h\frac{\lambda }{4}(\frac{\varphi }{\varphi })^4(h^4+4h^3v+4h^2v^2)].$$
$`(6)`$
Expanding $`\varphi `$ about its vev and keeping terms only up to linear order in $`\widehat{\varphi }`$ we get

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill S& =d^4x[\frac{1}{2}\eta ^{\mu \nu }_\mu h_\nu h\frac{\lambda }{4}(h^4+4h^3v+4h^2v^2)]\hfill & \\ & +d^4x[\eta ^{\mu \nu }_\mu h_\nu h\frac{\lambda }{4}(h^4+4h^3v+4h^2v^2)]\frac{\widehat{\varphi }}{\varphi }+..\hfill & (7)\hfill \end{array}$$

Since the trace of the energy momentum tensor of the higgs field is given by

$$T_\mu ^\mu =\eta ^{\mu \nu }_\mu h_\nu h\lambda (h^4+4h^3v+4h^2v^2).$$
$`(8)`$
we find that small fluctuations in the radion field from its vev couples to the higgs field on the visible brane through the trace of its energy-momentum. Using the classical equation of motion $`^2h=\lambda (h^3+3h^2v^2+2hv^2)`$ for the higgs field in the above expression for $`T_\mu ^\mu `$ the higgs-radion interaction can be written as

$$L_I=[m_h^2h^2+\lambda vh^3]\frac{\widehat{\varphi }}{\varphi }.$$
$`(9)`$
The radion coupling to the higgs field therefore has a three point vertex and a four point vertex. We shall find later that the four point vertex actually leads to unitarity violation at high enough energies. We shall now use these couplings to determine the transition amplitude for the process $`hhh\varphi `$ at very high energies i.e. when $`sm_h^2,m_\varphi ^2`$. Let $`M_1`$, $`M_2`$, $`M_3`$ denote the transition amplitudes due to s, t, u channel higgs exchanges and $`M_4`$ denote the transition amplitude for due to the four point $`hhh\varphi `$ vertex. We then find that at very high energies to leading order in $`\frac{m_h^2}{s}`$ and $`\frac{m_\varphi ^2}{s}`$

$$M_1=\frac{6\lambda v}{\varphi }\frac{m_h^2}{sm_h^2}\frac{6\lambda v}{\varphi }\frac{m_h^2}{s}.$$
$`(10a)`$
$$M_2=\frac{6\lambda v}{\varphi }\frac{m_h^2}{tm_h^2}\frac{12\lambda v}{\varphi }\frac{m_h^2}{s}\frac{1}{\alpha \beta x}.$$
$`(10b)`$
$$M_2=\frac{6\lambda v}{\varphi }\frac{m_h^2}{um_h^2}\frac{12\lambda v}{\varphi }\frac{m_h^2}{s}\frac{1}{\alpha +\beta x}.$$
$`(10c)`$
and

$$M_4=\frac{\lambda v}{\varphi }.$$
$`(10d)`$
where $`\alpha =1\frac{m_h^2+m_\varphi ^2}{s}`$ and $`\beta =1\frac{3m_h^2+m_\varphi ^2}{s}`$. $`x=\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ where $`\theta `$ is the angle between the outgoing h and one of the incoming h. We shall consider energies far above the higgs pole to avoid the strong rise in the transition amplitude near the pole. It is clear that as $`s\mathrm{}`$ the terms that constitute a potential threat to unitarity are the ones that diverge with s or at least remains constant. We find from the above expressions that as $`s\mathrm{}`$, the first three transition amplitudes tend to zero. However $`M_4`$ remains a constant. Although the total transition amplitude has acceptable high energy behaviour, it can lead to unitarity violation for sufficiently large values of $`\lambda `$ or small $`\varphi `$. In other words either $`m_h`$ must be sufficiently small or $`\varphi `$ must be large enough to avoid unitarity violation. In order to determine the unitarity bound on $`m_h`$ implied by the process $`hhh\varphi `$ we shall follow Lee, Quigg and Thacker  and confine our attention to the J=0 partial wave amplitude. We find that

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill a_0& \frac{\lambda v}{16\pi \varphi }[1+6\frac{m_h^2}{s}12\frac{m_h^2}{s\beta }\mathrm{ln}\frac{\alpha +\beta }{\alpha \beta }]\hfill & \\ & \frac{\lambda v}{16\pi \varphi }[1+6\frac{m_h^2}{s}+12\frac{m_h^2}{s\beta }\mathrm{ln}\frac{m_h^2}{s}]\hfill & \\ & \frac{\lambda v}{16\pi \varphi }.\hfill & (11)\hfill \end{array}$$

as $`\frac{m_h^2}{s}0`$. The unitarity constraint $`|a_0|<\frac{1}{2}`$ then implies that $`m_h^2<16\pi \varphi v`$. In other words the higgs mass must be less than $`4\sqrt{\pi \varphi v}`$ so that the J=0 partial wave amplitude does not violate unitarity. For $`\varphi 1`$ Tev the unitarity bound on $`m_h`$ is about 3.5 Tev. We would like to note firstly that in SM the unitarity bound on $`m_h`$ that follows from the somewhat analogous process $`hhhh`$ is given by $`m_h<\sqrt{\frac{8\pi }{3}}v.7`$ Tev which is somewhat smaller than the value obtained in this report. Secondly although the processes $`W_L^+W_L^{}W_L^+W_L^{}`$, $`W_L^+W_L^{}Z_LZ_L`$, $`W_L^+W_L^{}hh`$ and $`Z_LZ_Lhh`$ have acceptable high energy behaviour in the SM model they exhibit bad high energy behaviour in the context of the Randall-Sundrum scenario. The bad high energy behaviour arises from the diagram that involves the exchange of radion. These processes however also receive contributions from the s channel exchange of Kaluza-Klein gravitons which could give rise to transition amplitudes with much worse high energy behaviour. On the other hand the process $`hhhh`$ exhibits acceptable high energy behaviour both in the SM and the RS scenario if we neglect the contribution of KK gravitons. The s wave transition amplitude for the latter process however depends both on $`m_h`$ and $`m_\varphi `$ in the RS secnario. The unitarity constraint $`|a_0|<\frac{1}{2}`$ therefore gives a bound on $`m_h`$ that depends on $`m_\varphi `$. This explains the reason why we chose the process $`hhh\varphi `$ which gives a unitarity bound on $`m_h`$ that is independent of $`m_\varphi `$.

The four point vertex $`hhh\varphi `$ in the higgs-radion interaction Lagrangian is crucial for the unitarity bound discussed in this paper. The presence of this term in $`T_\mu ^\mu `$ is easily understood. The electro-weak symmetry breaking also breaks the conformal symmetry. The conformal symmetry is broken not only by the higgs mass term in the potential but also the trilinear higgs interaction term. The unitarity violation discussed in this paper signals that the higgs-radion coupling becomes strong and non-perturbative as $`\lambda `$ approaches its unitarity limit value. Therefore higher order radiative corrections and non-perturbative effects become imporatnt and they could significantly change the unitarity bound presented here. The estimation of such non-perturbative corrections although important will not be considered in this paper.

References

1. L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3370 (1999).

2. W. D. Goldberger and M. B. Wise, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4922 (1999).

3. C. Csaki, M. Graesser, L. Randall and J. Terning, hep-ph/9911406; W. D. Goldberger and M. B. Wise, hep-ph/9911457.

4. B. W. Lee, C. Quigg and H. B. Thacker, Phys. Rev. D 16 282 (1977).