text:
# Untitled Document

hep-th/0008088 TIFR-TH/00-43 OHSTPY-HEP-T-00-012

Giant Gravitons, BPS bounds and Noncommutativity

Sumit R. Das

,

Tata Institute of Fundamental Research

Homi Bhabha Road, Mumbai 400 005, INDIA

Antal Jevicki

Department of Physics, Brown University

Providence, RI 02192, U.S.A.

Samir D. Mathur

Department of Physics, The Ohio State University

Columbus, OH. 43210, U.S.A.

It has been recently suggested that gravitons moving in $`AdS_m\times S^n`$ spacetimes along the $`S^n`$ blow up into spherical $`(n2)`$ branes whose radius increases with increasing angular momentum. This leads to an upper bound on the angular momentum, thus “explaining” the stringy exclusion principle. We show that this bound is present only for states which saturate a BPS-like condition involving the energy $`E`$ and angular momentum $`J`$, $`EJ/R`$, where $`R`$ is the radius of $`S^n`$. Restriction of motion to such states lead to a noncommutativity of the coordinates on $`S^n`$. As an example of motions which do not obey the exclusion principle bound, we show that there are finite action instanton configurations interpolating between two possible BPS states. We suggest that this is consistent with the proposal that there is an effective description in terms of supergravity defined on noncommutative spaces and noncommutativity arises here because of imposing supersymmetry.

August, 2000

1. Introduction and Summary

One of the striking consequences of the holographic correspondence in $`AdS_m\times S^n`$ spacetimes  is the stringy exclusion principle . It has been also argued that the stringy exclusion principle means that the dual supergravity should live on a noncommutative space-time, e.g. quantum deformations of $`AdS\times S`$ . The principle states that the maximum angular momentum of single particle BPS states (in space-time) is bounded by $`N`$, where $`N`$ is the flux of the $`n`$-form magnetic field strength on the sphere. Recently, McGreevy, Susskind and Toumbas  has provided a novel explanation of this phenomenon. According to their proposal, a single trace operator of the holographic theory are well described as single particle supergravity modes (we call generically call them gravitons) for low values of the angular momenta. However, for large angular momenta, these blow up into spherical $`(n2)`$ branes moving on the $`S^n`$. In some cases this blow-up follows qualitatively from the Myers effect  1 This connection has been explored in . It is then demonstrated that the radius of these spherical branes grows with the angular momentum for a restricted class of motion where the radius of the brane does not change with time and in addition there are no waves along the brane. Since the radius of the brane cannot exceed the radius of the sphere on which it moves, there is a bound on the angular momentum.

As we will see, it is important to emphasize that for consistency there should be only one BPS state for a given angular momentum even though it might appear that there is both a graviton and a “giant graviton” or a wrapped brane. The point is that the former is a valid description for small angular momenta while the latter is the correct description for large angular momenta.

A natural question arises immediately. What about non-BPS states ? There are of course a large number of non-BPS states in the gauge theory which are still represented by single trace operators and should therefore correspond to single particle or single brane states in the dual description. In this paper we show that the hamiltonian for brane motions on spheres leads to a BPS-type bound, viz. there is a lower bound on the energy for a given angular momentum. The restricted type of motion considered in  are those which saturate this bound. If we are working in a supersymmetric theory, it is natural to expect that these are also configurations which preserve some of the supersymmetries. Thus non-BPS states correspond to other motions, e.g. oscillations and changes of the radius. From this bound it is straightforward to see that the radius of the brane increases with the angular momentum for $`n>3`$. For such motions the potential has two minima - one at zero radius and the other at a radius which scales as $`J^{\frac{1}{n3}}`$. We show that there are finite action instanton configurations interpolating between the two minima. The implication of this is, however, less clear since the description of the system as a brane with some DBI action fails when the size of the brane is small.

Since the dynamics of D-branes is defined on a commutative phase space one might wonder whether noncommutativity is visible in the “giant graviton” scenario. We show that this is in fact true . More precisely we show that the restriction of the motion of the branes to those which saturate the BPS bound which can be implemented in terms of supersymmetry generators imply a set of second class constraints in the phase space. This implies that the Dirac brackets of two coordinates on the $`S^n`$ transverse to the $`(n2)`$-brane are nonzero which should imply that in the quantum problem these operators do not commute. We show that the Dirac bracket in fact becomes singular at $`n=3`$, which is consistent with the fact that in this case all such states have the same (maximal) angular momentum. One could arrive at the same conclusion by considering directly the quantum commutators of the coordinate operators projected on to the subspace of states implied by the restriction on brane motion. Thus in the reduced phase space, it appears that two space directions do not commute. This is quite similar to the problem of a charge particle moving on a 2-plane in the presence of a constant mangetic field. In that case, restriction to the lowest Landau level implies that the two spacelike coordiantes do not commute. Connections of the bound on angular momenta of giant gravitons with noncommutativity have been heuristically discussed earlier in . However the precise origin of noncommutativity is rather unclear in this treatment.

The results of this paper were reported in “KIAS Summer Workshop on Branes” . While this paper was under preparation the papers  and  appeared on the net which have some overlap with Sections 2 and 3 of our work. In Section 4. we use some results of  and  to describe the origin of noncommutative space in the theory.

2. Brane motion on Spheres

We consider space-times of the form of $`AdS_m\times S^n`$ where $`m+n=10`$ in string theory and $`m+n=11`$ in M-theory. The radius of $`S^n`$ is $`R`$, which is also the scale of the $`AdS`$ space-time and there is a constant $`n`$-form flux on $`S^n`$ with $`N`$ quanta of flux. Let us consider the sphere $`S^n`$ embedded in $`R^{n+1}`$ with coordinates $`X^1\mathrm{}X^{n+1}`$

$$(X^1)^2+\mathrm{}(X^{n+1})^2=R^2$$

and we choose coordinates on the sphere as follows

$$\begin{array}{cc}& X^1=\sqrt{R^2r^2}\mathrm{cos}\varphi \hfill \\ & X^2=\sqrt{R^2r^2}\mathrm{sin}\varphi \hfill \end{array}$$

where $`0rR`$. The remaining $`X^3\mathrm{}X^{n+1}`$ chosen to satisfy

$$(X^3)^2+\mathrm{}(X^{n+1})^2=r^2$$

These may be written in terms of $`p=(n2)`$ angles $`\theta _1\mathrm{}\theta _p`$ and $`r`$ in the form of standard spherical polar coordinates in $`p+1`$ dimensions. Then the metric on $`S^n`$ becomes

$$ds^2=\frac{R^2}{R^2r^2}dr^2+(R^2r^2)d\varphi ^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_p^2$$

where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_p^2`$ is the volume element on a unit $`p`$-sphere.

We consider $`p`$-branes, with $`p=n2`$, wrapped on the $`S^p`$ embedded in $`S^n`$, moving entirely in the $`S^n`$ and sitting at the center of global coordinates in the $`AdS_m`$. The time coordinate in $`AdS`$ is denoted by $`t`$. In the $`(p+1)`$ dimensional world volume of the brane with coordinates $`\tau ,\sigma _1\mathrm{}\sigma _p`$ we choose a static gauge

$$\tau =t\sigma _i=\theta _i(i=1,\mathrm{}p)$$

. The dynamical coordinates are now $`r(t,\theta _i)`$ and $`\varphi (t,\theta _i)`$.

We will look at motions of the brane where there are no oscillations, i.e. $`r,\varphi `$ are independent of the angles $`\theta _i`$. Then the brane lagrangian is given by

$$L=\lambda [r^p(1g_{rr}(r)\dot{r}^2g_{\varphi \varphi }\dot{\varphi }^2)^{1/2}r^{p+1}\dot{\varphi }]^{1/2}$$

where

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \lambda =\frac{N}{R^{p+1}}\hfill \\ & g_{rr}(r)=\frac{R^2}{R^2r^2}\hfill \\ & g_{\varphi \varphi }(r)=R^2r^2\hfill \end{array}$$

The first term is the Dirac-Born-Infeld (DBI) term. The coefficient is a rewriting of the tension of the brane in terms of $`N`$ and $`R`$. This follows from the corresponding classical supergravity solution. It is crucial in what follows that we have exactly the same coefficient in the second term - the Chern-Simons term. This is the coupling of the brane with the $`n`$-form field strength and the precise coefficient follows from standard flux quantization.

In the following we will set $`R=1`$ so that all dimensional quantities are in units of $`R`$. We will restore $`R`$ at the very end.

The canonical momenta for $`r`$ and $`\varphi `$ are $`p_r`$ and $`p_\varphi `$ respectively and are given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}& p_r\lambda P=\frac{\lambda r^pg_{rr}(r)\dot{r}}{(1g_{rr}(r)\dot{r}^2g_{\varphi \varphi }\dot{\varphi }^2)^{1/2}}\hfill \\ & p_\varphi \lambda j=\frac{\lambda r^pg_{\varphi \varphi }(r)\dot{\varphi }}{(1g_{rr}(r)\dot{r}^2g_{\varphi \varphi }\dot{\varphi }^2)^{1/2}}+\lambda r^{p+1}\hfill \end{array}$$

The momentum $`p_\varphi `$ is an angular momentum and is conserved. $`p_r`$ is not conserved. From (2.1) one gets

$$(1g_{rr}(r)\dot{r}^2g_{\varphi \varphi }\dot{\varphi }^2)^{1/2}=r^p[r^{2p}+\frac{P^2}{g_{rr}(r)}+\frac{(jr^{p+1})^2}{g_{\varphi \varphi }(r)}]^{1/2}$$

The canonical hamiltonian can be now derived in a standard fashion and becomes

$$H=\lambda [r^{2p}+\frac{P^2}{g_{rr}(r)}+\frac{(jr^{p+1})^2}{g_{\varphi \varphi }(r)}]^{1/2}$$

2.1. BPS bounds

Motion can be labelled by the quantum number $`j`$. It is easy to show that for some given $`j`$ there is a lower bound on the energy - a BPS bound. This is not immediately obvious from the form of the hamiltonian (2.1). However a straightforward algebra allows us to rewrite $`H`$ in the following form

$$H=\lambda [j^2+\frac{P^2}{g_{rr}(r)}+\frac{(jrr^p)^2}{g_{\varphi \varphi }(r)}]^{1/2}$$

Since $`g_{rr}(r)=(1r^2)^1`$ and $`g_{\varphi \varphi }(r)=1r^2`$ (in $`R=1`$ units) are positive it is clear that

$$H\lambda j$$

This is the BPS bound.

In deriving the form of the hamiltonian given in (2.1) it is absolutely crucial that the relative coefficient between the DBI term and the Chern-Simons term is what it is. This happens because the $`n`$-form flux is quantized in the standard way. Furthermore the exact form of the metric on the sphere is also crucial. All the details of working in a consistent supergravity background has entered in the calculation.

2.2. BPS saturated states and angular momentum bounds

The bound is saturated when

$$p_r=0$$

and

$$jr=r^p$$

The latter has two solutions for $`p0`$

$$r=r_1=0r=r_2=j^{\frac{1}{p1}}$$

Thus BPS motions have constant $`r`$, which is the size of the brane.

The potential energy for such motion

$$V(r)=\frac{(jrr^p)^2}{1r^2}$$

For $`p=0`$ the potential does not vanish at $`r=0`$. There is a minimum for $`j<1`$ in the physical range of $`r`$. however the potential is nonvanishing at the minimum and this does not correspond to a BPS state. When $`j>1`$ there is one minimum where $`V(r)=0`$ and the location of the minimum moves to smaller values of $`r`$ as $`j`$ increases. Thus, for $`p=0`$ BPS states must have $`j>1`$.

For $`p=1`$ and $`j1`$ there is no minimum for $`r<1`$. For $`j=1`$ the potential is zero everywhere. Thus all BPS states have $`j=1`$.

For $`p2`$ the potential has two minima with a maximum inbetween. These minima are precisely $`r_1`$ and $`r_2`$ given in (2.1). Thus there are two kinds of BPS states : the one which correspond to zero size branes and the other with branes with sizes scaling as $`j^{1/(p1)}`$. Since the range of $`r`$ is between $`0`$ and $`1`$ this immediately implies that there is an upper bound for $`j`$

$$jR^{p+1}$$

where we have restored $`R`$. The physical angular momentum is

$$p_\varphi =N$$

For a BPS state, $`H=\lambda j=p_\varphi /R`$. This is the same dispersion relation as that of a massless graviton which is moving purely on the sphere. What is surprising is that states of branes, which are by themselves heavy objects, can lead to a light state. The reason this behind this is of course the coupling to the $`n`$-form field strength. The effect of this cancelled the effect of brane tension.

In the above discussion, we have used the phrase “BPS configuration” in its original sense. In a supersymmetric theory one would expect that these configurations also preserve some of the supersymmetries 2 This has in fact been shown in ,.

3. Tunnelling between vacua

We saw that for $`p2`$ there are two minima. Strictly speaking, the minimum at $`r=0`$ is in a regime where we cannot trust our picture. The description of brane physics in terms of a DBI-CS lagrangian is valid when the size of the brane is much larger than the basic length scale of the theory and clearly a zero size brane cannot be described in this fashion. On the other hand, for sufficiently large $`j`$ the other minimum lies in the domain of validity of our calculation. This is consistent with the overall picture implied in . For low values of the angular momentum the perturbative graviton is a good description of the state. For large values of angular momenta, this description fails and one should consider the states as wrapped branes.

It is nevertheless of some interest to ask whether there are finite action tunelling configurations between the two vacua. We now want to consider motion in the $`r`$ direction, for a given value of $`j`$ in euclidean signature. The hamiltonian for such motion is given by

$$H=\lambda [U(r)+\frac{p_r^2}{\lambda ^2g_{rr}(r)}]^{1/2}$$

where

$$U(r)=j^2+V(r)$$

The corresponding lagrangian is then

$$L=\lambda [U(r)]^{1/2}[1g_{rr}(r)\dot{r}^2]^{1/2}$$

so that the euclidean action is

$$S_E=𝑑t[U(r)]^{1/2}[1+g_{rr}(r)\dot{r}^2]^{1/2}$$

while the euclidean hamiltonian is

$$H_E=\lambda [U(r)\frac{p_E^2}{\lambda ^2g_{rr}(r)}]^{1/2}$$

where

$$p_E=\lambda \frac{g_{rr}(r)\dot{r}[U(r)]^{1/2}}{[1+g_{rr}(r)\dot{r}^2]^{1/2}}$$

To construct instanton solutions interpolating between the two minima of $`U(r)`$ we need solutions of the euclidean equations of motion with euclidean energy $`H_E^2=\lambda ^2j^2`$. It is easily seen that such motion obeys

$$\dot{r}=\pm \frac{1}{j}r(jr^{p1})$$

the two signs corresponding to instantons and anti-instantons. Using (3.1) and (3.1) it is easy to check that the euclidean action for this solution is

$$S_{ins}^{}=\frac{\lambda }{j}𝑑tU(r)$$

This action may be easily seen to be infinite. However one must remember that the energy of the states between which tunelling is occuring is nonzero and equal to $`\lambda j`$. This has itself an action

$$S_0=\lambda j𝑑t$$

Thus the true instanton action is

$$S_{ins}=S_{ins}^{}S_0$$

and this is in fact finite.

For example for $`p=2`$ the solution to (3.1) is

$$\frac{r}{jr}=e^t$$

and the action $`S_{ins}^{}`$ is

$$S_{ins}^{}=\lambda _0^j𝑑r[\frac{j^2}{r(jr)}+\frac{r(jr)}{1r^2}]$$

The first term in the integral is clearly divergent while the second term is finite. However, using (3.1) again one sees that this term is in fact

$$\lambda j𝑑t$$

which is exactly $`S_0`$. Thus the subtracted quantity $`S_{ins}`$ is finite :

$$S_{ins}=\lambda [j+\frac{1}{2}(1j)\mathrm{log}(1j)\frac{1}{2}(1+j)\mathrm{log}(1+j)]$$

We have shown that there are finite action instanton configurations which interpolate between the two minima of the potential. However, as emphasized above, the meaning of this is not very clear since the configuration with zero sized branes clearly lies outside the validity of our description. In fact for a given angular momentum there is only one state : for low angular momentum this is a point like state represented by a graviton and for large angular momentum this is an extended brane. For intermediate angular momenta the description is probably complicated.

4. Multiple brane states

The $`N=4`$ super Yang Mills theory that arises from D-3-branes has chiral operators of the form $`\mathrm{tr}[\mathrm{\Phi }^{i_1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{i_n}]`$, where we symmetrize in the indices $`i_k`$. But it has also been argued that there exist multi-trace operators that are also chiral primaries . These operators are of the form (for two traces)

$$\mathrm{tr}[\mathrm{\Phi }^{i_1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{i_m}]\mathrm{tr}[\mathrm{\Phi }^{i_{m+1}}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{i_n}]$$

with the indices $`i_k`$ again symmetrized. In a similar manner we can make operators with more traces. These operators are expected to be dual to multi-particle states in the dual string theory. In the case of $`AdS_3\times S^3\times M^4`$ it was found in  that multiparticle states in supergravity were needed to account for the elliptic genus computed from the dual CFT.

The existence of multiparticle chiral primaries raises the following issue for the stringy exclusion principle. To be able to get these states we must be able to construct multiparticle states where the interactions between the particles exactly ‘cancel out’ giving energy equal to the sum of $`R`$-charges. At the same time we should not be able to increase the number of such quanta without bound, since when the total charge exceeds the limit set by the exclusion principle then the state should not be BPS.

Let us examine the consequence of this fact for the giant gravitons. The $`n`$-trace operators in the gauge theory would presumably be dual to $`n`$ branes placed in the dual spacetime. If this state is to be BPS, then the interactions between these branes must ‘cancel out’. This $`n`$ particle state is different from the single particle state with the same charges, so we do not require that these configurations mix to produce one effective state. (Note however that operator refinitions mix single and multiparticle states in some cases .)

On the other hand when the total charge on the branes exceeds the limit set by the exclusion principle, we should no longer be able to make a BPS state. Thus consider the giant graviton that expands in the $`AdS`$ direction rather than along the sphere, and let the angular momentum $`L`$ exceed the limit set by the exclusion principle. Then there can be a tunneling from this state to one where there are say two giant gravitons, with angular momenta $`L_1,LL_1`$. Pictorially, we imagine a large sphere pinching in the middle and separating into two spheres.

While we have not computed the action for such an instanton, there appears to be no reason why it should diverge. In the case of tunneling from a finite brane to a point, the latter configuration was singular and one could worry about corresponding divergences in the amplitude. But the tunneling on hand is between two regular configurations, and we can make interpolating configurations that have finite contribution from the Born-Infeld and Wess-Zumino terms.

Thus the picture of tunneling may be more complex than that noted in  and . Apart from the pointlike graviton and the two giant gravitons, we have a host of multi-brane states that have the same quantum numbers. The exclusion principle requires some of these to exist, while the others (with $`L`$ larger than the exclusion bound) may disappear by tunnelings that involve all the configurations mentioned above.

5. Supersymmetry and Noncommutativity

We have seen that for BPS motions wrapped branes have a bound on the angular momentum thus providing a new perspective on the stringy exclusion principle.

Bounds on angular momentum appear naturally for particle motions on noncommutative spaces, e.g. fuzzy spheres or quantum spheres. One might wonder : does the dynamics discussed above which is entirely based on a commutative space imply an (effective) dynamics in a noncommutative space ?

The important point here is that it is only for BPS states there is a bound on the angular momentum, not for other motions like changes of the size of the brane or oscillations of the brane. Likewise from the point of view of holography there are non-BPS states which can have any value of the angular momentum. Consider for example $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ where the holographic theory is $`3+1`$ dimensional $`N=4`$ Yang-Mills theory. In terms of the Higgs fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }^ii=1,\mathrm{}6`$ of this theory chiral primary operators are of the form

$$\mathrm{Tr}_S[\mathrm{\Phi }^{i_1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{i_n}]$$

where the subscript “S” means that we have to symmetrize with respect to the indices $`i_1\mathrm{}i_n`$ and subtract the trace. Supergravity modes lie in the chiral primary multiplet obtained from (5.1) by acting with supersymmetry charges. Clearly (5.1) has a $`SO(6)`$ angular momentum equal to $`n`$. The rank $`N`$ of the gauge group $`SU(N)`$ is in fact the quantized flux of the five form field strength on $`S^5`$. Such operators and their supersymmetry partners can have a maximum angular momentum $`N`$. There are however operators which involve derivatives of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ which do not create BPS states, e.g.

$$\mathrm{Tr}_S[\mathrm{\Phi }^{i_1}\mathrm{\Phi }^{i_2}\mathrm{\Phi }^{i_3}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{i_n}]$$

Clearly there is no bound for the angular momenta of these operators since we can have higher and higher derivatives and $`^n\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a different matrix than $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

Knowing that BPS states respect half of the supersymmetries we are now lead impose the condition $`Q=0`$ on the phase space . This can be done since $`Q`$ represent symmetry generators of the theory.The imposition of this symmetry strongly on the phase space will lead ,as we will now argue to a noncommutative space.

We therefore need to know what kind of motion of the brane respect half the supersymmetries of the background. The question we ask is the converse of the question answered in  and , where it was shown that the giant graviton with no motion in the $`r`$ direction respects half the supersymmetries. On the worldvolume action of the brane with fermionic coordinates $`\mathrm{\Theta }^\alpha `$ we need to choose a $`\kappa `$\- symmetry gauge condition $`(1+\mathrm{\Gamma })\mathrm{\Theta }=0`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is is the pullback

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{1}{(p+1)!}ϵ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_{p+1}}_{i_1}X^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}_{i_{p+1}}X^{\mu _{p+1}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{p+1}}$$

where $`X^\mu `$ denote the bosonic coordinates on the brane worldvolume, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ are the Dirac Gamma matrices in target space and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu _1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu _n}`$ We need to look at supersymmetry transformations which preserve this gauge choice. These are the transformations

$$\delta \mathrm{\Theta }=\frac{1}{2}(1\mathrm{\Gamma })ϵ$$

for an infinitesimal spinor parameters $`ϵ`$. To preserve the supersymmetries of the background we require in addition that $`ϵ`$ is in fact a Killing spinor of the background. The corresponding supercharge is given by

$$Q=\frac{1}{2}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}(1\mathrm{\Gamma })$$

so that $`\delta \mathrm{\Theta }=\{Qϵ,\mathrm{\Theta }\}`$.

In the static gauge we are using the expression for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ may be seen to be (using expressions given in )

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{1}{r^{p+1}}[\frac{H}{\lambda }\mathrm{\Gamma }_0& +P(\sqrt{1r^2}\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{\Gamma }_{p+2}+\sqrt{1r^2}\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{\Gamma }_{p+1})\hfill \\ & +(jr^{p+1})(\frac{\mathrm{cos}\varphi }{\sqrt{1r^2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{p+2}\frac{\mathrm{sin}\varphi }{\sqrt{1r^2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{p+1})]\mathrm{\Gamma }_{p\mathrm{}1}\hfill \end{array}$$

where we have now used a coordinate system on the sphere $`S^{p+2}`$ which have angles $`\theta _1\mathrm{}\theta _{p+2}`$. The angles $`\theta _1\mathrm{}\theta _p`$ are on the $`S^p`$ on which the $`p`$-brane is wrapped while the relationshipe between $`\theta _{p+1},\theta _{p+2}`$ with $`r,\varphi `$ are given by

$$\sqrt{1r^2}\mathrm{cos}\varphi =\mathrm{cos}\theta _{p+2}\sqrt{1r^2}\mathrm{sin}\varphi =\mathrm{sin}\theta _{p+2}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{p+1}$$

Using an analysis similar to that in  and  it is straightforward to see from (5.1) and (5.1) that the condition that half of the supercharges vanish implies $`P=\frac{p_r}{\lambda }=0`$.

What does this condition imply in phase space ? The coordinates $`(r,\varphi )`$ and the momenta $`(p_r,p_\varphi )`$ satisfy standard Poisson brackets. In particular

$$[r,\varphi ]_{PB}=0$$

However, we have shown that BPS motions have $`p_r=0`$. Thus we should regard this as a constraint in phase space

$$\psi _1=p_r=0$$

as a weak condition. Taking Poisson bracket with the Hamiltonian yields a secondary constraint

$$\psi _2=\frac{dV}{dr}=0$$

Actually, this can also be seen as following from the symmetry reduction condition $`Q=0`$. There are no further constraints. This is because a direct computation yields

$$[H,\psi _2]_{PB}=\frac{\lambda ^2p_r}{Hg_{rr}(r)}\frac{d^2V}{dr^2}$$

which vanishes on the constraint surface because of (5.1). Finally the two constraints $`\psi _1`$ and $`\psi _2`$ form a second class system with the Poisson bracket

$$[\psi _1,\psi _2]_{PB}=\frac{d^2V}{dr^2}$$

so that the matrix of PB’s of the constraints is

$$C=i\frac{d^2V}{dr^2}\sigma _2$$

where $`\sigma _2`$ is the Pauli matrix

To analyze the dynamics of these restricted set of motions we need to look at the brackets of unconstrained variables on the reduced phase space. Alternatively we should look at Dirac brackets. These may be computed in a straightforward manner and the result is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill [r,\varphi ]_{DB}& =[r,\varphi ]_{PB}[r,\psi _1]_{PB}(C^1)^{12}[\psi _2,\varphi ]_{PB}\hfill \\ & =\frac{1}{\lambda }\frac{^2V/rj}{^2V/r^2}\hfill \end{array}$$

Onn the constraint surface this evaluates to

$$[r,\varphi ]_{DB}=\frac{R^{p1}}{N}\frac{r^{2p}}{p1}$$

which is nonzero. In a quantum theory we should replace this Dirac bracket by a commutator and one would have noncommuting coordinates on the sphere. The noncommutativity is proportional to $`1/N`$ as expected. Furthermore this is divergent for $`p=1`$ and reverses sign for $`p=0`$. However these are the two cases where is no true bound for the angular momentum.

Alternatively one can consider the quantum theory directly. Now the condition $`p_r=0`$ should be imposed on the space of states. If $`P`$ denotes the projection operator on these states the relevant dynamical quantities in this subspace of states are $`PrP`$ and $`P\varphi P`$. These will not commute even though $`r`$ and $`\varphi `$ do.

The origin of noncommutativity in our problem is similar to the way noncommutativity arises in the quantum Hall effect when one restricts to the lowest Landau level. Here again the restriction to the lowest Landau level may be viewed at the classical level as constraints which set the velocities to zero as weak conditions. The Dirac bracket for the coordinates is then nontrivial.One justification of this procedure for restricting to lowest Landau level is given by taking the mass zero limit. In the present case we have a much more elegant reason for such reduction namely supersymmetry.

Interestingly, the above commutation relation turns out to be identical to the one obtained by the following heuristic argument in  where it is also shown that for $`p=2`$ these are the same as the commutators which define a fuzzy $`S^4`$. We have seen that for motions with $`P=0`$ the size of the brane is related to the angular momentum $`j`$ by the relation $`j=r^{p1}`$. We can then consider $`r^{p1}`$ as the canonical conjugate to $`\varphi `$. This leads to a commutation relation between $`r`$ and $`\varphi `$ which is the same obtained by replacing the Dirac bracket (5.1) by a commutator. However this heuristic argument does not throw light on the origin of noncommutativity which lies in the fact that we are working on a subspace of states.Most importantly as we have argued the reduction to a noncommutative space can be understood as a hamiltonian reduction based on supersymmetry.

6. Conclusions

Our analysis has provided an important consistency check on the giant graviton picture viz. BPS states have bounded angular momenta while there are non-BPS states which can have arbitrary angular momenta. This is consistent with the stringy exclusion principle. We have shown that at the classical level such states have the same dispersion relation as that of a graviton ; the brane tension is cancelled by the Lorentz force due to the field strength to which the brane couples. Furthemore the very existence of the BPS bound required precise coefficients in front the DBI and Chern Simons terms \- these incorporate flux quantization as well as the details of the geometry.

In  and  it has been shown that these BPS states are in fact those which preserve half of the supersymmetries of the background. We showed that one can impose these supersymmetry conditions only when $`p_r=0`$ or equivalently the size of the brane is fixed during its motion. We can then impose the condition that half of the supercharges vanish as a strong condition which would then imply this restriction of the motion of the branes which which lead to bounded angular momenta for $`p2`$. The same restriction also led us to the fact that for such motions, the two transverse coordinates on the sphere can be regarded as noncommuting. It is important to realize that there is nothing noncommuting at the fundamental level. This arises purely because we are considering motion on a constrained surface on phase space. This constrained surface can be understood as given by the condition that on it half of the supercharges vanish. In other words space can be regarded as noncommutative if and only if we restrict to the subspace of BPS states. We believe that this fact can have implications for the suggestion that noncommutativity could be the origin of the stringy exclusion principle.

7. Acknowledgements

We would like to thank J. Hoppe, S. Ramgoolam and S. Trivedi for discussions. This work was partialy supported by Department of Energy under grant DE-FG02-91ER4068-Task A. S.D.M. is supported in part by DOE grant no. DE-FG02-91ER40690. S.R.D. would like to thank the String Theory Group at Harvard University, Department of Physics, Ohio State University and Department of Physics at Brown University for hospitality.

References

relax J. Maldacena, Adv. Math. Theor. Phys. 2 (1998) 231, hep-th/9711200; S.S. Gubser, I.R. Klebanov and A.M. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B 428 (1998) 105, hep-th/9802109; E. Witten, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 253, hep-th/9802150. relax J. Maldacena and A. Strominger, JHEP 9812 (1998) 005, hep-th/9804085 relax A. Jevicki and S. Ramgoolam, JHEP 9904 (1999) 032, hep-th/9902059; P. Ho, S. Ramgoolam and R. Tatar, Nucl. Phys. B 573 (2000) 364, hep-th/9907145; A. Jevicki, M. Mihailescu and S. Ramgoolam, hep-th/0006239. relax J. McGreevy, L. Susskind and N. Toumbas, JHEP 0006 (2000) 008, hep-th/0003075. relax R. Myers, JHEP 9912 (1999) 022, hep-th/9910053; D. Kabat and W. Taylor, hep-th/9711078. relax S.R. Das, S. Trivedi and S. Vaidya, to appear relax P. Ho and M. Li, hep-th/0004072 relax Talk given by A. Jevicki, KIAS Summer Workshop on Branes”, Seoul, June 12-17, 2000, http://www.kias.re.kr/conf/brane-program.html relax M. Grisaru, R. Myers and O. Tafjord, hep-th/0008015 relax A. Hashimoto, S. Hirano and N. Itzhaki, hep-th/0008016. relax L. Andrianopoli and S. Ferrara, Lett.Math.Phys. 48 (1999) 145; W. Skiba, Phys.Rev. D60 (1999) 105038; M. Bianchi, S. Kovacs, G.Rossi, Yassen and S. Stanev, JHEP 9908 (1999) 020. relax J. de Boer, Nucl. Phys. B548, 139 (1999) \[hep-th/9806104\]; JHEP 9905, 017 (1999) \[hep-th/9812240\]. relax Hong Liu and A.A. Tseytlin, JHEP 9910 (1999) 003; E. D’Hoker, D.Z. Freedman, S.D. Mathur, A. Matusis and L. Rastelli, to appear in the Yuri Golfand Memorial Volume ‘Many faces of the Superworld’ (ed. M. Shifman). (hep-th/9908160)


format: text

text:
# Diffraction of wave packets in space and time in three dimensions

## 1 Introduction

In a previous work, it was shown analytically that there exist a broad class of phenomena occurring in nonrelativistic and relativistic quantum wave packet potential scattering that behave as time dependent persistent diffraction patterns. The patterns are produced by a time independent well or barrier. Differing form the diffraction in time and diffraction in space and time phenomena, that apply to the time dependent opening of slits with plane monochromatic waves, the pattern does not decay exponentially with time.

Diffraction in time, and diffraction in space and time are very valuable tools to investigate time dependent predictions of quantum mechanics. Recent measurements of atomic wave diffraction, support the theoretical prediction of the diffraction in time process. The phenomenon of wave packet diffraction in space and time is still untested. We will propose below an experiment for its verification together with a numerical simulation of the expected results.

In ref. a closed analytical formula for the wave function of a packet scattering in one dimension off a time independent potential was derived. This work was preceded by numerical investigations of the one and two-dimensional cases. It was found analytically and numerically that, a diffractive structure that travels in time, exists for all packets, but, it survives only for packets that are initially narrower than a value related to the potential effective extension. For wider packets, the peak structure merges into a single peak.

In the present work we develop an analytical formula for the three dimensional case and show that the same behavior is present. In section 3 we also treat the one dimensional Dirac case in an analytical manner. Section 4 proposes an experiment and simulates its expected results.

## 2 Wave packet diffraction in three dimensions

Consider a gaussian wave packet,

$`\varphi (\stackrel{}{𝐫},t)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{y_0}`$
$`y_0`$ $`=`$ $`i\stackrel{}{𝐪}_0(\stackrel{}{𝐫}\stackrel{}{𝐫}_0){\displaystyle \frac{(\stackrel{}{𝐫}\stackrel{}{𝐫}_0)^2}{4\sigma ^2}}`$ (1)
with $`\stackrel{}{𝐪}_0`$, the initial average momentum of the packet, $`\stackrel{}{𝐫}_0`$, the initial location and $`\sigma `$ the packet width, impinging on a spherically symmetric square well

$`V(x)=V_0\mathrm{\Theta }(wr)`$ (2)
where, w is the well width, and $`V_0`$, the depth, and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, the step function. The results are not dependent on the choice of wave packet, however, the Gaussian profile facilitates the integrations. The total wave function with outgoing boundary condition reads

$`\psi ^+(\stackrel{}{𝐫},t)`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _{in}(\stackrel{}{𝐫},t)+\psi _{scatt}(\stackrel{}{𝐫},t)`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3kf(\stackrel{}{𝐤},\stackrel{}{𝐪}_0)(\psi _{in}(\stackrel{}{𝐤},\stackrel{}{𝐫},t)+\psi _{scatt}(\stackrel{}{𝐤},\stackrel{}{𝐫},t))}`$
where

$`\psi _{in}(\stackrel{}{𝐤},\stackrel{}{𝐫},t)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\stackrel{}{𝐤}\stackrel{}{𝐫}}`$
$`\psi _{scatt}(\stackrel{}{𝐤},\stackrel{}{𝐫},t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{ikr}}{kr}}{\displaystyle \underset{L}{}}(2L+1)e^{i\delta _L}sin(\delta _L)P_L(\text{}\text{})`$
$`f(\stackrel{}{𝐤},\stackrel{}{𝐪}_0)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{(\stackrel{}{𝐤}\stackrel{}{𝐪}_0)^2\sigma ^2i\stackrel{}{𝐤}\stackrel{}{𝐫}_0i\frac{k^2}{2m}t}`$ (4)
The incoming wave may be found explicitly to be

$`\psi _{in}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{it/(2m)+\sigma ^2}}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}e^{y_1}`$
$`y_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\stackrel{}{𝐫}\stackrel{}{𝐫}_0)^24i(\stackrel{}{𝐫}\stackrel{}{𝐫}_0)\stackrel{}{𝐪}_0\sigma ^24\sigma ^4q_0^2}{it/(2m)+\sigma ^2}}`$ (5)
Performing the angular integral over , the scattered wave becomes

$`\psi _{scatt}(\stackrel{}{𝐫},t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle k^2𝑑k\mathrm{\Phi }(k,t)}`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }(k,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{ikr}}{kr}}{\displaystyle \underset{L}{}}(2L+1)e^{i\delta _L}sin(\delta _L)I_Le^{\sigma ^2(k^2+q_0^2)it\frac{k^2}{2m}}`$
The expression for $`I_L`$ is quite involved. However, for $`L=0`$ it simplifies considerably. Fortunately, this is the only contribution we need at long times (except for very specific cases for which the phase shift of higher partial waves dominates, see below). Fot $`t\mathrm{}`$ the integral above oscillates wildly except for values of k that give an extremal phase. It is easy to show that in this case, only extremely small values of k enter the integral. However, for very small values of k, the phase shift reads

$`tan(\delta _l)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(kw)^{2l+1}}{(2l1)!!(2l+1)!!}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_ll}{z_l+l+1}}`$
$`z_l`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{xj_l^{}(x)}{j_l(x)}}`$ (7)
where $`x=k^{}w=\sqrt{k^2+2m|V_0|}w`$, and $`j_l`$, denotes the spherical Bessel function of order l.

It is then clear, that, except for very pathological cases only the lowest partial wave matters. Higher partial waves are suppressed by factors of the form $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{w}{\sqrt{it/(2m)+\sigma ^2}}}\right)^l`$. For very long times we can then approximate the scattered wave by taking only the $`L=0`$ term in eq.(2). For this case $`I_L`$ becomes

$`I_0`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi j_0(kd)`$
$`d`$ $`=`$ $`|\stackrel{}{𝐫}_0+2i\sigma ^2\stackrel{}{𝐪}_0|`$ (8)
where the absolute value pertains to the vectorial character of the variable inside the vertical bars, and not to the complex number. Therefore, $`j_0`$ is really a complicated mixture of Bessel and Hankel functions.

Inserting eqs.(2,2) in eq.(2) and recalling the rules for the integration of the error function for complex variables, we find the transparent result

$`\psi _{scatt}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{it/(2m)+\sigma ^2}}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{r+d}{r}}e^{y_2}`$
$`y_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(r+d)^2}{4(it/(2m)+\sigma ^2)}}+\lambda `$ (9)
where $`ln(\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{z_0}{d(z_0+1)}}`$, with $`z_l`$ defined in eq.(2).

The incoming and scattered wave interfere in the total wave. Noting that the scattered wave depends on the absolute value of $`\stackrel{}{𝐫}`$, while the incoming wave depends on $`\stackrel{}{𝐫}`$ itself, it is clear that there will be a totally different behavior at forward and backward angles. The backwards scattered full wave for long distances and times becomes

$`\psi `$ $`=`$ $`2i\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{it/(2m)+\sigma ^2}}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}sin({\displaystyle \frac{mr}{t}}(r_0+2iq_0\sigma ^2)+\lambda /2)e^x`$
$`x`$ $`=`$ $`q_0^2\sigma ^2{\displaystyle \frac{r^2m^2}{t^2}}+i{\displaystyle \frac{t}{2m}}r^2+\lambda /2`$ (10)
This is a diffraction pattern that travels in time as found for the one dimensional case. Again the pattern gets blurred and forms a single peak when the imaginary part of the argument of the sin function is large. As explained in ref., this amounts to the condition $`\sigma >>\sqrt{\frac{w}{q_0}}`$. For narrow enough packets the pattern persists to infinity. In the forward direction there is no interference as may be easily found by examining eq.(2). Instead of a sin function, we find there a pure exponential. Only tiny interferences survive due to small terms. In some sense the process should be more properly called, interference in space and time, because it is due to the superposition of incoming spread packet and the scattered wave.

Numerical calculations of the two dimensional case indeed support these findings. Moreover, the results are independent of the impact parameter provided the initial packet is located at a much longer distance along the direction of $`\stackrel{}{𝐪}_0`$ as compared to the transverse direction, as found numerically in ref.. Also the pattern does not depend strongly on the initial momentum. The formula of eq.(2) may be used to find the angular distribution, the scattering and total cross sections, etc. Such expressions do not seem to exist in the literature for packets, even for the simplest square well case dealt with here.

As mentioned above the above treatment took advantage of the properties of Gaussian packets and the simplicity of the square well. However, they are general. One has only to replace the Gaussian form factor by the appropriate one in case and the phase shift for the square well by the one corresponding to the specific choice of potential. The case of long range potentials deserves however some care. In refs. the connection to the excitation of a half-bound state, inside the well, Levinson’s theorem and the phenomena of diffraction in time and diffraction in space and time were discussed. The same applies without modification to the present case.

It is also evident, that the sign of the potential is irrelevant. A barrier may do too. This is in line with optical diffraction of slits and around objects.

## 3 Wave packet scattering for the Dirac equation

Consider the one-dimensional Dirac equation with a scalar potential S(x) as given by eq.(2)

$`\left[i\gamma ^\mu _\mu +\left(m+S(x)\right)\right]\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$ (11)
For the initial packet we use a minimal uncertainty relativistically invariant wave packet

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_0=\left(\begin{array}{c}U\\ V\end{array}\right)`$

$`U`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑ke^{ik(xx_0)2\sigma ^2(EE_0kq_0m^2)}}`$
$`V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑k\frac{ik}{E+m}e^{ik(xx_0)2\sigma ^2(EE_0kq_0m^2)}}`$ (12)
with $`E=\sqrt{k^2+m^2},E_0=\sqrt{q_0^2+m^2}`$, and we have taken $`\gamma _\mathrm{𝟎}=\sigma _𝐳,\gamma _\mathrm{𝟏}=\sigma _𝐳\sigma _𝐱`$ for the Dirac matrices, where $`\sigma `$ denotes the corresponding Pauli matrix.

The stationary wave function inside and outside the well for fixed momentum is given by $`\varphi (k,x,t)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _1\\ \varphi _2\end{array}\right)`$

$`\varphi _1(x<w,k,t)`$ $`=`$ $`(e^{ikx}+Be^{ikx})`$
$`\varphi _2(x<w,k,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ik}{E+m}}(e^{ikx}Be^{ikx})`$
$`\varphi _1(w<x<w,k,t)`$ $`=`$ $`(Ce^{ik^{}x}+De^{ik^{}x})`$
$`\varphi _2(w<x<w,k,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ik^{}}{E+m^{}}}(Ce^{ik^{}x}De^{ik^{}x})`$
$`\varphi _1(w<x,k,t)`$ $`=`$ $`Fe^{ikx}`$
$`\varphi _2(w<x,k,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ik}{E+m}}Fe^{ikx}`$ (13)
with

$`B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1g^2)(e_3^2e_4^2)}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}`$
$`C`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2e_1e_4(1+g)}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}`$
$`D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2e_1e_3(1g)}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}`$
$`F`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4g}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}`$ (14)
where $`e_1=e^{ikw},e_2=e^{ikw},e_3=e^{ik^{}w},e_4=e^{ik^{}w}`$, $`g={\displaystyle \frac{k^{}(E+m)}{k(E+m^{})}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=e_3^2(1g)^2e_4^2(1+g)^2`$, $`k^{}=\sqrt{E^2(m^{})^2},m^{}=mV_0`$.111For a vector potential the  is in the energy instead of the mass

The solution to the scattering of the packet becomes $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,t)=\left(\begin{array}{c}U(x,t)\\ V(x,t)\end{array}\right)`$

$`U(x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑k\varphi _1(k,x,t)e^{ikx_02\sigma ^2(EE_0kq_0m^2)iEt}}`$
$`V(x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑k\varphi _2(k,x,t)e^{ikx_02\sigma ^2(EE_0kq_0m^2)iEt}}`$ (15)
As in section 2 we consider the long time behavior of the wave. Here too, the reflected wave will receive contributions mainly from low values of k. Inspection of the reflection parameter B in eq.(3), we find that for $`k0`$, $`B1`$. The same happened in the nonrelativistic treatment of . For low initial momenta, $`q_0<<m,orv<<1`$, the exponential of eq.(3) becomes $`e^{ikx_0imti\frac{k^2}{2m}t\sigma ^2(q_0k)^2}`$. So except for the factor $`e^{imt}`$, that is independent of k, we are back at the nonrelativistic case for the upper component, and at the same time the lower component vanishes. Hence, the Dirac case in one dimension is exactly analogous to the nonrelativistic case for low average momenta of the initial wave packet.

In the ultrarelativistic limit $`m0`$, the upper and lower components are identical up to a factor of i. The incoming and reflected waves do not spread. Hence, there is no interference between both. If we first find the wave in the backward direction as in ref., and then take the limit of a small mass, we find that the pattern disappears, as the arguments of the sin function tend to zero. For $`t\mathrm{}`$, the backwards scattered wave becomes a receding wave packet located around $`x=x_0tw`$, without any diffraction. The incoming packet is no longer present in the region behind the well.

In summary, the diffraction in space and time with wave packets exists in the relativistic regime, but gradually diminishes as the mass decreases, until is eventually washed out completely for the massless case, as was found for the diffraction in time process with the Klein-Gordon equation.

## 4 Numerical simulation of a suggested experiment

Present advances in bose traps permit the easy handling of atoms at very low temperature and velocities. At such energies the atoms move as if they were a wave packet provided the random agitation due to thermal effects is not as crucial. However, still the large amount of interactions between the particles and of them with the environment causes a decoherence of the wave in quite a short time.

Instead of resorting to a cold bose gas, we will then focus on a drop of liquid Helium. Although the experimental details are beyond the expertise of the present theoretical work we will describe a hypothetical setup in the hope that it is not too far away from reality.

Consider a drop of liquid helium, of around $`1cm^3`$ in volume lying at a corner of Cesium coated plates perpendicular to each other. Cesium is needed in order to prevent wetting. The helium, plate and environment should be at a temperature below the $`\lambda `$ point, although it would be interesting to see the effect of normal to superfluid component of the Helium on the wave packet behavior, as a tool to study decoherence. Put a large area detector behind the drop behind the plate. The number of particles measured as a function of time at a fixed position would then be determined by the absolute value of the wave function at that point. The particles are repelled by the wall and the packet spreads at the same time. Figure 1 depicts such a case. We solved the one dimensional Schrödinger equation for a packet as described in  , with and a barrier of very large strength. We assumed a total number of particles of $`N=510^{21}`$, obtained from the tabulated density of liquid helium and a volume of 1 $`cm^3`$. We used a plate (potential) of width w=1 cm and strength $`V_0=4eV10^{15}`$, in units of $`\mathrm{}=1`$. We took a detctor size of $`dx=1mm`$. It appears that, due to the large number of particles to be detected a simple weighing technique might be feasible, in this way we also avoid interaction of the packet with the detector.

It is perhaps too optimistic to expect the proposed experiment will work so cleanly as in the simulation, due to all kinds of effects inside the drop that lead to decoherence as well as production of internal excitations like rotons, vortons, etc. However, some remainder of the effect might still show up in the counter. If it does, it will be a triumph for the quantum mechanical description of matter waves by means of wave packets of macroscopic size.


text:
# Coherent population transfer in coupled semiconductor quantum dots

## Abstract

We propose a solid-state implementation of stimulated Raman adiabatic passage in two coupled semiconductor quantum dots. Proper combination of two pulsed laser fields allows the coherent carrier transfer between the two nanostructures without suffering significant losses due to environment coupling. By use of a general solution scheme for the carrier states in the double-dot structure, we identify the pertinent dot and laser parameters.

Quantum coherence among charge states is known to have strong impact on the optical properties of confined systems. A striking example of such coherence is provided by trapped states where two intense laser fields drive an effective three-level system into a state which is completely stable against absorption and emission from the radiation fields. This highly nonlinear coherent-population trapping is exploited in the process of Stimulated Raman Adiabatic Passage (STIRAP)  to produce complete population transfer between quantum states: Coherent control of optical excitations of atoms and molecules, as well as of chemical-reaction dynamics has been demonstrated in the last years.

Successful implementations of such schemes in semiconductor nanostructures would have a strong impetus on the development of novel opto-electronic devices. However, in contrast to atomic systems carrier lifetimes in the solid state are much shorter because of the continuous density-of-states of charge excitations and stronger environment coupling. Although the possibility of trapped states and coherent population transfer in semiconductor quantum wells has been demonstrated theoretically,  its efficiency is expected to be extremely poor as compared to atomic systems. It has, on the other hand, been noted that the situation could be much more favorable in semiconductor quantum dots (QDs), where the strong quantum confinement leads to an atomic-like density of states and to a strongly suppressed environment coupling.  However, in spite of the continuing progress in dot fabrication, all the available samples still suffer from the effects of inhomogeneity and dispersion in dot size, which lead to large linewidths when optical experiments are performed on large QD ensembles. A major advancement in the field has come from different types of local optical experiments, that allow the investigation of individual QDs thus avoiding inhomogeneous broadening,  and simple coherent-carrier control in single dots has been demonstrated recently.

In this Letter, we propose a solid-state implementation of STIRAP in two coupled semiconductor QDs. Using a general solution scheme for the carrier states in the QD, which was recently proven successful in giving a realistic description of experiment,  we identify the pertinent dot and laser parameters. This will allow us to argue that an implementation of the proposed scheme should be possible with the present state-of-the-art sample growth and coherent-carrier control. In its simplest form, the STIRAP scheme involves three states, where two long-lived low-energy states $`|1`$ and $`|3`$ are dipole coupled to a state $`|2`$ of higher energy (which can be short lived); transitions between states $`|1`$ and $`|3`$, on the other hand, are dipole forbidden. Then, by acting with two appropriately tuned laser pulses on the system, within a STIRAP process all population is transferred between states $`|1`$ and $`|3`$ without ever populating the “leaky” state $`|2`$ This is a remarkable property, as it allows an almost complete population transfer without suffering significant losses due to environment coupling of the inter-connecting level.

Figure 1 sketches the proposed implementation of STIRAP in two coupled semiconductor QDs: The two dots (with an assumed parabolic in-plane potential  and a double-quantum-well confinement along $`z`$) are embedded in the intrinsic region of a typical $`p`$-$`i`$ field-effect structure (the dotted line in Fig. 1 indicates the Fermi energy of the $`p`$-type region).  By applying an external gate voltage, the number of surplus holes in the dot structure can be precisely controlled; throughout this paper we assume that the double dot is populated by an additional hole, where further charging is prohibited because of the Coulomb blockade. If the external electric field is strong enough, the hole wavefunctions become localized in either of the two dots ($`|R`$ or $`|L`$), as can be inferred from the shaded areas in Fig. 1. In contrast, the electron wavefunction extends over both dots (see $`|e`$ in Fig. 1) because of the smaller electron mass and the resulting increased inter-dot tunneling (electron and hole masses are different for most GaAs-based dot materials,  e.g., self-assembled In0.5Ga0.5As dots). Thus, the inter-connecting state $`|2`$ of the STIRAP process is assigned to the charged-exciton state (approximately consisting of one electron in state $`|e`$ and two holes in states $`|R`$ and $`|L`$), whereas the long-lived states $`|1`$ and $`|3`$ are assigned to the two hole states.

A detailed theoretical analysis was performed for the dot structure of Fig. 1, assuming a prototype dot confinement which is parabolic in the in-plane directions  and which has a profile along $`z`$ according to Fig. 1; such confinement potentials have been demonstrated to be a good approximation for self-assembled quantum dots formed by strained-layer epitaxy.  In our calculations for the double dot, we start from the single-particle states derived by solving the single-particle Schrödinger equation within the envelope-function and effective-mass approximations. For electrons and holes, respectively, we keep the 20 energetically lowest single-particle states (i.e., two subbands in the $`z`$-direction and 10 “Fock-Darwin” states of the 2D-harmonic oscillator ) and compute the charged-exciton states $`|X^+`$ through direct diagonalization of the Hamiltonian matrix (accounting for all possible hole-hole and electron-hole Coulomb interactions).  Note that within this scheme the truncation of the Hilbert space is the only approximation adopted, and that all Coulomb-induced effects are accounted for in a first-principles manner. For simplicity, in the following we only consider charged exciton states where the two holes have parallel spin orientations; experimentally, this can be achieved by (i) aligning the spin of the surplus hole by a small external magnetic field, and (ii) photo-generating electron-hole pairs with appropriate spin orientation by use of circularly polarized light.

Suppose that initially the surplus hole is in state $`|h`$ (with $`h=L,R`$). The linear absorption spectrum:

$$\alpha _h(\omega )\underset{X^+}{}|M_{h,X^+}|^2𝒟_\gamma (ϵ_h+\omega ϵ_{X^+})$$
(1)
then provides information about the dipole-allowed transitions to charged exciton states $`|X^+`$; here, $`M_{h,X^+}`$ is the optical dipole element for the transition between states $`|h`$ and $`|X^+`$, $`ϵ_h`$ and $`ϵ_{X^+}`$ are the energies of the hole and the charged-exciton states, respectively, and $`𝒟_\gamma (\omega )=2\gamma /(\omega ^2+\gamma ^2)`$ is a broadened delta function, where the phenomenological damping constant $`\gamma `$ accounts for interactions with the dot environment ($`\mathrm{}=1`$). Figure 2 shows the calculated linear absorption spectra for the double-dot of Fig. 1, with the surplus hole in the lowest-energy Fock-Darwin state (with $`s`$-type symmetry) and: (a) in the right dot; (b) in the left dot. One observes two peaks at photon energies of $``$130 meV and a peak multiplet at higher photon energies. A closer inspection of the charged-exciton states reveals that: (i) in Fig. 2(a) (Fig. 2(b)) the peak at $`\omega _p`$ ($`\omega _s`$) corresponds to a transition from state $`|R`$ ($`|L`$) to the charged-exciton state of lowest energy; (ii) the peaks at higher photon energies correspond to the transitions to excited charged-exciton states. We thus conclude that indeed the charged-exciton groundstate optically couples to both the right-dot and left-dot hole groundstate. Furthermore, since all excited states are optically well separated from the two peaks at $`\omega _s`$ and $`\omega _p`$, in the following it suffices to consider as an effective three-level scheme the charged-exciton groundstate only (henceforth denoted with $`|X^+`$), and for the hole state in the right and left dot, respectively, the Fock-Darwin state of lowest energy. In this respect two points are worth mentioning: First, our findings do not depend decisively on the chosen dot parameters, but rather reflect the basic symmetries of the dot confinement; second, because of the zero-dimensional nature of carrier states in QDs there arises no conceptual problems in choosing the Coulomb-renormalized charged-exciton state as the inter-connecting state required for an implementation of STIRAP—in contrast to semiconductors of higher dimensionality, where Coulomb renormalizations can spoil a clear-cut identification of an effective three-level system.

We next turn to a discussion of the STIRAP process, where the hole is transferred from state $`|R`$ to state $`|L`$ by coupling to the intermediate charged-exciton state $`|X^+`$. Suppose that the system is subjected to two laser pulses, where the frequency of the “Stokes” (“pump”) pulse is tuned to the $`L`$$`X^+`$ ($`R`$$`X^+`$) resonance (see $`\omega _s`$ and $`\omega _p`$ in Figs. 1 and 2). To understand the essence of STIRAP, as a first preliminary step we assume that the Stokes pulse only affects the $`L`$$`X^+`$ transition, whereas the pump pulse only affects the $`R`$$`X^+`$ transition (results of our complete time simulations will be presented further below). Within the interaction picture, the Hamiltonian of the effective three-level system then reads (neglecting environment coupling):

$$𝐇=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_p(t)}{2}|X^+R|\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_s(t)}{2}|X^+L|+\text{H.c.},$$
(2)
with the Rabi frequencies $`\mathrm{\Omega }_s(t)=_s(t)M_{L,X^+}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p(t)=_p(t)M_{R,X^+}`$, and the time envelopes $`_{s,p}(t)`$ of the Stokes and pump pulse, respectively. For time-independent envelopes $`_{s,p}`$ the Hamiltonian $`𝐇`$ of Eq. (2) can be diagonalized:

$$\begin{array}{cccccccc}|a_o\hfill & =& & & \mathrm{cos}\theta |R\hfill & & \mathrm{sin}\theta |L,\hfill & \omega _o=0\hfill \\ |a_\pm \hfill & & |X^+\hfill & \pm (& \mathrm{sin}\theta |R\hfill & +& \mathrm{cos}\theta |L),\hfill & \omega _\pm =\pm \mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{eff}},\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
with $`|a_o`$, $`|a_\pm `$ the eigenvectors and $`\omega _o`$, $`\omega _\pm `$ the eigenvalues, $`\theta `$ the mixing angle defined by $`\mathrm{tan}\theta =\mathrm{\Omega }_p/\mathrm{\Omega }_s`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Omega }_s^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_p^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$. $`|a_o`$ has the remarkable property of being decoupled from the laser fields, i.e., if the system is initially prepared in this coherent-superposition state it remains there at any time, since the contribution to the excited-state amplitude from both hole states interfere destructively.

The STIRAP process uses state $`|a_o`$ as a vehicle in order to transfer population between states $`|R`$ and $`|L`$. Since $`|a_o`$ does not involve contributions from the “leaky” state $`|X^+`$, the population can be directly channeled between the two long-lived hole states (i.e., without suffering losses from $`|X^+`$). Coherent population transfer is achieved by using two delayed laser pulses which overlap in time (see Fig. 3): Initially, the system is prepared in state $`|R`$. When the first laser pulse (“Stokes”) is smoothly turned on, the double-dot system is excited at frequency $`\omega _s`$. One readily observes from Fig. 2(a) that this pulse cannot induce any optical transition. What it does, however, is (i) to align the time-dependent state vector $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_t`$ with $`|a_o_t=|R`$ (since $`\theta =0`$ in the sector $`\mathrm{\Omega }_s0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p=0`$), and (ii) to split the degeneracy of the eigenvalues $`\omega _o`$, $`\omega _\pm `$. Thus, if the second laser pulse (pump) is smoothly turned on —such that throughout $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{eff}}(t)`$ remains large enough to avoid (non-adiabatic) transitions between $`|a_o_t`$ and $`|a_\pm _t`$— all population is transferred between states $`|R`$ and $`|L`$ within an adiabatic process where $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_t`$ directly follows the time-dependent trapped state $`|a_o_t`$.

Figure 3 shows a time simulation of STIRAP accounting for all possible dipole transitions. The relevant simulation parameters are listed in Table I; for the time envelopes of the Stokes and pump pulses we use Gaussians centered at times $`5`$ ps, with a full-width of half-maximum of $``$10 ps. In our simulations we use a (relatively short) effective lifetime of 25 ps for $`X^+`$ to account for radiative decay and other decoherence processes due to environment coupling.  The population transients for the three states $`|R`$, $`|L`$, and $`|X^+`$ in Fig. 3 show that for the realistic dot and laser parameters of Table I it is indeed possible to perform an almost complete population transfer between the two hole states. We verified that moderate modifications of the dot and laser parameters do not lead to noticeable changes in the results. Note that the small population of the leaky state $`|X^+`$ in Fig. 3 is due to the non-adiabatic transients of the laser pulses and to the coupling to non-resonant transitions; further increase of the Rabi frequencies was prohibited by the resulting increased losses due to off-resonant couplings.

In conclusion, we have proposed an implementation of stimulated Raman adiabatic passage (STIRAP) in a coupled-quantum-dot structure, which is remote-doped with a single surplus hole. The right-dot and left-dot hole states are optically connected through the charged-exciton state, where the spin orientations of electrons and holes are controlled by a small external magnetic field and by use of circularly polarized light. Proper combination of the pulsed Stokes and pump laser fields then allows a coherent population transfer between the two dot states without suffering significant losses due to environment coupling of the charged exciton state. Finally, we have discussed that the implementation of the proposed scheme is experimentally possible with the available tools of sample growth and coherent-carrier control.

G. P. thanks Prof. Lucio Claudio Andreani for helpful discussions. This work was supported in part by the EU under the TMR Network ”Ultrafast” and the IST Project SQID, and by INFM through grant PRA-SSQI.