text:
# Some Consequences of Magnetic Fields in High Energy Sources

## 1. Turbulence, Variability & Vorticity in Accretion Disks

Accretion disks are a widely accepted paradigm to explain a variety of spectral features in sources such as active galactic nuclei (AGN), X-ray binaries, cataclysmic variables (CVs), dwarf novae and protostellar . As gas orbits a central massive source, internal dissipation drains the orbital energy, allowing material to move in and angular momentum out. Some fraction of the dissipated energy accounts for the observed luminosity. Micro-physical viscosities are often too inefficient so an enhanced transport mechanism, likely involving turbulence, essential. The observational evidence for an enhanced/turbulent viscosity is least direct in the case of AGN disks, though it is natural to expect that the latter would be subject to the same turbulent viscosity generating mechanisms: As astrophysical disks are likely seeded with a magnetic field, the “Balbus-Hawley” or magneto-rotational instability (MRI)  ensues. This produces self-sustaining turbulence for flows with a radially decreasing angular speed that transports angular momentum in rotationally supported disks. Turbulence driven by the MRI transports angular momentum outward, unlike convection . Rossby wave vortices may also transport angular momentum outward .

For low enough accretion rates, the dissipated energy may be primarily advected by hot protons in advection dominated accretion flows (ADAFs) rather than radiated, possibly explaining why some sources have engines that are surprisingly quiescent . For optically thin, geometrically thick ADAFs, the disks may be physically similar to the coronae above the thin disks of Seyferts . The thin disk+corona is something like a hamburger sandwich with the optically thin (geometrically thick) corona being the bun and the optically thick (geometrically thin) disk is the meat. The ADAF is a sandwich with no “meat.”

Alternatives to simple ADAFs suggest that quiescent luminosities might instead result from reducing the accretion rates into the inner regions . Such models include advection dominated inflow outflow solutions (ADIOS)  and convection dominated accretion flows (CDAFs) (; Narayan, these proc). These require a less than maximal viscosity .

### Mean Field Disk Theory and Variability

In general, the ubiquity of turbulence in disks has important implications for what the accretion disk equations mean. Analytic disk equations are mean field equations. While non-linear instabilities in thin disks have been extensively simulated locally  a traditionally useful approach to disk models has been to swipe the details of the stress tensor into a turbulent viscosity of the form

$$\nu _{tb}=\alpha c_sHv_{tb}l_{tb},$$
(1)
where $`H`$ is the disk height, $`c_s`$ is the sound speed, $`l_{tb}`$ is the dominant turbulent scale, $`v_{tb}`$ is the eddy speed at that scale, and $`\alpha _{ss}<1`$ is a constant. Use of this formalism requires a mean field theory, not a replacement of the molecular viscosity with the turbulent viscosity. Assumptions of azimuthal symmetry and steady radial inflow  require turbulent motions to be averaged over the time and/or spatial scales on which mean quantities vary.

The required mean field approach is complementary to that employed in mean field magnetic dynamo theory, where the field is split into mean and fluctuating components, $`𝐁=\overline{𝐁}+𝐁^{}`$, and the induction equation is averaged and solved. For the accretion disk case, the momentum equation must be similarly split, and the evolution equation for the mean velocity field derived. The result is that $`\nu _{tb}`$ represents a correlation of turbulent fluctuations, that is $`\nu _{tb}=𝐯^{}(t)𝐯^{}(t^{})𝑑t^{}`$ .

Mean field theory has a limited precision, and thus predicts variability. Let the mean represent a global average over azimuth and half thickness, without averaging over the radius. Since all mean velocities are scalings of the Keplerian velocity, each radius is in principle “labelled” by its Keplerian speed. However, the averages over fluctuations produce an uncertainty in this labelling. Since the luminosity at a given frequency depends on the radius of emission for accretion disk models, we can relate the uncertainty in the observed luminosity to the uncertainty in the radius. That is,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }L_\nu /L_\nu |R_R(\mathrm{Ln}L_\nu )|\mathrm{\Delta }R/R=\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Delta }R/R$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ can depend on temperature but $`1`$ for a range of frequencies for thin and thick disk models . Let us estimate $`\mathrm{\Delta }R/R`$. The “error” associated with a single turbulent fluctuation of scale $`l_{tb}`$ is reduced by $`N^{1/2}`$ for each averaged dimension, where $`N`$ is the number of eddy spatial scales averaged over in that dimension. As observational data are taken in a time averaged sense, there is also a reduction that depends on observation time, $`t_{obs}`$. The result is $`\mathrm{\Delta }Rl_{tb}/[N_\varphi N_z(1+t_{obs}/t_{tb})]^{1/2}`$, where $`N_\varphi `$ and $`N_z`$ are the number of dominant eddy scales in the $`\varphi `$ and $`z`$ directions, and $`t_{tb}`$ is the dominant correlation time.

To make further progress, note that for fully developed MHD turbulence, near equipartition between kinetic and magnetic energy is generically reached, and is $`v_A2^{1/2}v_{tb}`$  in the case of accretion disks. The factor of $`\sqrt{2}`$ comes from shear that adds a bit more amplification to the field. The MRI instability onset time scale is of order the dominant eddy turnover or cascade time and is $`t_{tb}l_{tb}/v_{tb}\mathrm{\Omega }^1`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the rotation speed. Using these and (1) we have

$$v_A^2/2\mathrm{\Omega }=\alpha _{ss}c_sH.$$
(3)
Using $`\mathrm{\Omega }Hc_s`$ for vertical pressure support, we then have

$$\alpha _{ss}v_A^2/2c_s^2(l_{tb}/H)^2.$$
(4)
The next step is to note that $`N_\varphi =2\pi R/(2l_{tb})=(\pi R/H\alpha _{ss}^{1/2})`$, where the extra 2 on the bottom comes from eddy elongation in the $`\varphi `$ direction from shear, and $`N_z=H/2l_{tb}=\alpha _{ss}^{1/2}`$, where the 2 is from the 1/2 thickness.

Collecting all of the above into (2) gives

$$\mathrm{\Delta }L_\nu /L_\nu \mathrm{\Psi }\alpha _{ss}(H/R)^{3/2}(1+\mathrm{\Omega }t_{obs})^{1/2}.$$
(5)
For thick disk ADAF models, $`H/R1`$ and $`\alpha _{ss}1`$ , large variability around the predicted luminosities can be expected unless $`t_{obs}>>\mathrm{\Omega }^1`$. When variability is not seen, or a systematic deviation from the theory is seen in a sample of observations at widely separated times or in different objects, the simplest ADAF type model may not be capturing the physics. Such systematic deviations seem to be evident in some of the large ellipticals  Other such quiescent accretor variations such as CDAFs (Narayan these proc.) or ADIOS type models  which involve outflows may be more appropriate there.

### Vorticity

There are other effects of mean field theory in addition to the variability. If one considers the vertical disk averaging to be taken only over one hemisphere, then in addition to the scalar Shakura-Sunyaev turbulent viscosity transport term used in simple analytic accretion disk modeling, a pseudoscalar transport term also arises . This term is analogous to that which appears in magnetic dynamo theory, and can lead to vorticity growth .

In the same way that the mean field magnetic dynamo characterizes an inverse cascade of magnetic helicity , the vorticity dynamo highlights some growth of vorticity on larger scales than the input turbulence. Enstrophy exhibits an inverse cascade in 2-D turbulence . The growth of vorticity in primarily 2-D rotating fluids has been seen in nature (e.g. Jupiter ) as well as in simulation  and experiment . Statistical mechanics approaches have modeled this . Vorticity growth in sheared thin accretion disks has been studied less than th associated vortex evolution .

For an accretion disk in which mean quantities depend only on radius, Ref.  showed that

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill d_t\overline{\text{!}}=\times \alpha _0\overline{\text{!}}\times (\nu _{tb}\times \overline{\text{!}})\end{array}$$
(6)
in the frame comoving with the cartesian velocity tangent to the mean rotation, where the coefficients are

$$\begin{array}{c}\alpha _0=(\tau _c/3)(\text{!}^{(0)}𝐯_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(0)}\hfill \\ \nu _{tb}=(\tau _c/3)𝐯^{(0)}𝐯^{(0)}+𝐛^{(0)}𝐛^{(0)}\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
and $`𝐛^{(0)}𝐁^{(0)}/4\pi \overline{\rho }`$, with $`\overline{\rho }`$ as the mean density. (This equation presumes that 1st order cross correlation terms vanish, that is $`𝐛^{(0)}𝐯^{(0)}=\text{!}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(0)}𝐛^{{}_{}{}^{}(0)}=\text{!}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(0)}\times 𝐛^{(0)}=0.`$) Note that $`\nu _{tb}`$ is not the only transport term. There is also the pseudoscalar $`\alpha _0`$ term as in the magnetic field case. It is this pseudoscalar term which can lead to vorticity growth. Interestingly, the pseudoscalar for the vorticity, unlike for that of the mean magnetic field, has a kinetic helicity term without a current helicty term . The $`\alpha _0`$ can be parameterized as $`\alpha _0=q\alpha _{ss}c_s`$. One necessary condition for growth turns out to be $`q>H/R`$.

The simplest growth solutions  show a dominant growth scale $`H`$, leading to intermediate scale vortices that should survive at least a vertical diffusion time, that is, $`>`$$``$ few $`\times 1/\alpha _{ss}`$ orbits. For $`\alpha _{ss}0.01`$, the resulting anti-cyclonic vortices may allow dust trapping, catalyzing planet formation when applied to star+planet system forming disks .

Note that this simplified model of intermediate scale vorticity growth cannot tell how many vortices grow, or where in height or azimuth these vortices are, only that there are growing solutions. This is because here the variables are averaged to depend only on radius. Note also that if the vertical averaging is taken over the full scale height, then the $`\alpha _0`$ coefficient should vanish because the psuedoscalar reverses sign across the mid-plane. Then vorticity growth could not be identified in this over simplified formalism.

## 2. Buoyancy, Coronae & AGN Iron Line Profiles

### Coronae

MHD turbulence likely involves spatial intermittency of the magnetic field , even in accretion disks. While the dynamics of intermittency is not fully understood, the random component of the field would be preferentially amplified at regions of strongest shear. Since small scale shear varies spatially and spectrally in a turbulent medium, the field strength would also be expected to to vary in correlation. The strongest magnetic field regions might form a kind of dynamic sponge, intermixed with “void” regions that have much weaker fields. The extreme situation, in which the magnetic field occupies a distinct volume from the thermal material, could maintain dynamical equilibrium when the ratio of the the average particle to magnetic pressure in the disk ($`\beta _p`$) is large. To see this, consider the field to reside in magnetically dominated flux tubes. The pressure inside balances the external particle pressure. However, if $`\beta _p>>1`$, the tubes would occupy only a small volume filling fraction ($`1/\beta _p`$) . Since the distance between tubes would be large, intersections with other tubes would be too infrequent to significantly load particles into the tubes. In contrast, if the magnetic volume filling fraction were large, frequent reconnection events over a large fraction of the tubes’ longitudinal cross section would more easily mass load the tubes and lead to one phase medium. The amount of intermittency remains to be understood. Understanding this intermittency is important because extremely evacuated tubes rise at speeds of order their internal Alfvén speeds and form coronae. Coronal magnetic dissipation is as important a problem for disks  as it is for the Sun

While coronae have been long thought to form above disks  analytic work often does not incorporate the turbulence and/or the origin of the initial large field. The usually invoked Parker instability favors wave modes which can be shredded by the Balbus-Hawley instability on time scales approximately equal to rise times. Simulations of turbulent disks show that coronae do form in turbulent disks  but the dominant mechanism, and its relationship to the process of formation in the solar corona is not fully sorted out.

If the disk were not subject to MRIs and turbulence, the induction equation tells us that the disk field would grow linearly from shear. It would saturate at a value that is higher than the saturation value of the MRI. This is because the shear can amplify the field over a much longer time in a laminar disk; the field remains coherent longer. Field strengths of order the thermal pressure could incur before buoyancy (in this case by the Parker instability) drained the field into the corona. For MRI driven disks, the shear only operates on a single magnetic field filament for a correlation time (one rotation) after which that filament loses its identity. The field energy saturates by a factor of $`\alpha _{ss}`$ lower for the turbulent case. Also for the the laminar case, the corona would be more intermittent. This is because the buoyancy and the dissipation would likely get rid of the field faster than it builds up. For a laminar disk, the field growth would be linear in time whereas for the MRI disk, the growth is exponential. A laminar disk + corona should thus exhibit longer variability periods than a turbulent disk, but with larger amplitudes. The observational evidence in the case of AGN disks/corona seems to suggest a turbulent disk. While X-ray variabilities of factors of several are observed , factors of orders of magnitudes are not, suggesting a steady background level of coronal dissipation.

### AGN Iron Lines and Engine Geometries

Seyfert galaxy X-ray spectra, are best modeled as a combination of direct emission from a hot corona and reprocessed emission from a cold, optically thick accretion disk . The direct component results from inverse Compton scattering of thermal disk UV photons. The reprocessed component incurs as photons are scattered back onto the disk.

If it weren’t for the active coronae, we would lose a probe of strong gravity . The reprocessed coronal emission includes the broad iron K$`\alpha `$ fluorescence line of rest energy 6.4 keV, which carries information about the geometry and dynamics of the reprocessing material near the black hole . ASCA has observed iron lines in $`18`$ Seyfert Is . The best studied iron line is that of MCG-6-30-15 . In addition to the geometry, the iron line profiles are sensitive to the disk illumination law, the disk inclination, and the inner and outer radii . Most work on reprocessing in AGN has invoked thin flat disks with axially symmetric illumination laws representing a “point” X-ray source.

Some AGN line profiles like MCG-6-30-15 are consistent with flat disks  but the current data may be not precise enough to rule in or out non-axisymmetric engines in other cases. Such engines are also worth considering in order to provide robust comparisons to flat disk models. Ref  considered finite disk thicknesses and Ref  considered concave disks. Warped disks have also been considered around Schwarzchild black holes . There are plausible theoretical reasons for disk warping including radiation driven warping  and tidal warping . On the observational side, water maser emission of NGC 4258 at 0.1pc from the central engine (on larger scales than the inner accretion disk) traces a disk warp . There may also be indirect evidence on these larger scales from observations of Seyfert Is which suggest that the broad line regions are not coplanar with the inner disk . Dusty tori of Seyfert unification paradigms might also involve warped disks .

Warped disk studies reveal line features that are impossible for unobscured flat thin disks. First, shadowing of the source by the disk and shadowing of reprocessed emission by the disk blocks regions of the disk from contributing to the iron line. Sharper red than blue cutoffs or very soft blue cutoffs can also arise. The latter characteristic is seen in some profiles of Ref . The sharp red cutoffs result for large inclination angles, which is consistent with some Seyfert IIs . Second, non-axisymmetry of the disk means that line profiles can show time variability if the warp precesses around the disk. Third, there can be sharper peaks near the rest frequency compared to a flat disk since concavity can offer more solid angle covering fraction. Fourth, apparent misalignment of central disk plane with the obscuring torus can be accounted for.

For a concave disk, sharper peaks near the rest frequency can be accompanied by a total reprocessed emission fraction that is larger than 1/2 , where 1/2 is the maximum limit for a point source above a flat disk. This may play a role in ultra-soft narrow-line Seyferts (Brandt, private communication 1999), though there are other ways to achieve this enhanced reprocessing fraction.

Line profiles from a distribution of dense clouds in an optically thin, geometrically thick disk may apply to ADAFs. Dense clouds formed from thermal instability can survive long enough to produce reprocessing signatures in otherwise optically thin flows . This needs more investigation.

## 3. Springs, Flings & Large Scale Fields

Many large scale jets and winds in astrophysics including those of young stellar objects, microquasars, gamma-ray bursts, and AGN jets may be magnetically driven. Even supernovae may also involve magnetically driven bipolar outflows (Wheeler, these proc.). How MHD jets work and where the requisite large scale magnetic fields come from are integrated questions, but are usually studied independently.

The large amount of work on MHD jet launching and collimation will not be reviewed here (see ). However, note that the launching mechanisms could be divided into “spring”  and “fling”  mechanisms. In the former class, the jet is launched initially by toroidal magnetic field pressure. Imagine for example, a dipole magnetic field anchored in a star which incurs rapid differential rotation (such as the collapse from a white dwarf to a young neutron star as invoked in  for gamma-ray bursts) or in a supernova core collapse (Wheeler, Meier personal comm.). As the differential rotation winds up the field, the toroidal field pressure grows quadratically in time. When the pressure reaches some critical value, the field will act something like a coiled spring and can drive a strong torsional Alfvén wave containing directed Poynting flux outward. This could in principle power a jet. Related mechanisms have been discussed for disks . In this regard, note that in the case of AGN, it is not clear if the jet emission we see represents dissipation from instabilities at the edge of the jet, re-acceleration inside the jet along the bulk flow, or just emission from a very small number of particles carrying the currents  which support the magnetic fields.

In the “fling” launch mechanism , the initial launch is driven by centrifugal force. The rigid field lines significantly weaken the effective gravitational potential when sufficiently inclined to the normal, allowing material fling out along poloidal field lines. Subsequently, before reaching the Alfvén surface, the driving does become magnetically driven as in the “spring” mechanism. Since simulation of such launching treats the base of the jet (e.g. its initial launch point in the corona) as a boundary condition, simulators often load the field lines with a little mass flow to get the process started . The initial launching is different for spring and fling, but the ultimate collimation mechanisms could be the same, e.g. hoop stresses. The extent of the collimation appears to be sensitive to the boundary conditions of the outflow however .

MHD jet luminosity is fueled by the rotational energy. In systems which have both central compact rotators and disks, outflows could emanate from both e.g. . In black hole systems, the relative contribution to the jet power from regions within and outside of the last stable orbit of the disk has been addressed . Even if a Blandford-Znajek type mechanism is operating from the hole, a jet from the disk may in fact always dominate. However, the black hole spin can still influence the jet, since it determines the inner edge of the disk, and is ultimately important for understanding the magnetospheres .

Where do the required magnetic fields  come from? The first possibility is that they are accreted. But this may not work for a turbulent accretion disk. Consider a turbulent disk threaded by a large scale vertical magnetic field. The field is subject to turbulent diffusion and may incur a net diffusion outward  (with some dependence on turbulent Prandtl number.) The role of reconnection may not yet be fully appreciated in this process. Without reconnection, the mean field is indeed subject to turbulent diffusion, but it cannot ultimately separate from the gas which has a systematic inward motion. In the absence of a topology change that can release field lines from the initial material they thread, the field would accrete on the diffusion time scale.

If the fields cannot be accreted then they would have to have been threading the central object before the disk formed, or be generated by a dynamo in the central object (if not a black hole) or disk. A traditional approach to the amplification of fields on scales larger than the scale of the input turbulence is the mean field dynamo  mentioned earlier. Only modes which have an initial seed field can be amplified. For an accretion disk dynamo, the limit of field energy density is the turbulent energy density. This limit is $`\alpha _{ss}`$ times the thermal energy density, which suggests that “spring” mechanisms are less likely from dynamo produced fields than “fling” mechanisms in turbulent disks.

It is important to distinguish between “large” scale and “mean” fields. Standard mean field theory is degenerate with respect to the topology of the field on scales smaller than the scale of the mean. Disconnected loops can have the same mean as a connected winding field line. In the formalism of mean field dynamo theory, reconnection is therefore not strictly required (though it is likely happening anyway). This is not commonly recognized. Said another way, neither the mean field nor the fluctuating component of the field are the topologically physical field. To generate jets, common wisdom holds that the mean fields actually do have to correspond to the topologically physical field. Perhaps this need not be the case if the Poynting flux driving the jet is an average quantity: $`𝐄\times 𝐁=𝐞\times 𝐛+\overline{𝐄}\times \overline{𝐁}`$, where the first term on the right, due to only fluctuating quantities, is usually ignored in this context (but see  where the collimation is non-magnetic.) If we do ignore fluctuating components, then to magnetically launch and collimate jets by the “fling” mechanism, the mean fields would need to be topologically large scale. One plausible way this could arise in a disk corona is if flux loops make their way to the surface and subsequent reconnection events inverse cascade smaller loops to larger loops .

The role of boundary conditions is particularly important for mean field dynamos. First, generating a net flux of the mean field in a quadrupole mode inside an object is accomplished by diffusion of the reverse flux through the boundary. Fast cycles (e.g solar cycle) of a dipole field also require boundary diffusion to change the flux inside. Incompressible simulations which employ periodic boundary conditions over the scale of the mean cannot see mean field growth because the induction equation then constrains the mean field to be time independent.

In addition, ref.  showed that conservation of magnetic helicity means that the growth of large scale field with one sign of magnetic helicity inside the system requires helicity of the opposite sign to diffuse out the boundary. Some results showing strong dynamo coefficient $`\alpha `$ quenching  may therefore highligh just an effect from the assumed boundary conditions rather than dynamical suppression. In general, to properly test large scale field formation in a turbulent disk one must really utilize a global study, with significant scale separation and diffusive boundary conditions.

### Closing Comment

There is much to be learned on all of the above subjects by looking at the sun , as others would also advocate . Note that dynamos in the Sun may operate differently than in disks. For the Sun, strong shear amplification may take place below the actual turbulent zone, whereas in disks, the turbulent zone and the shear are the same region. However the sun has a large scale wind and with an active corona , consistent with MHD outflows along open field lines and x-ray activity resulting from dissipation of closed field lines. We should expect the same for a wide variety of turbulent astrophysical rotators.

Acknowledgements: E.B. acknowledges the invitation and support of KIAS, and support from a DOE Plasma Physics Junior Faculty Development Award.


format: text

text:
# E1 TRANSITIONS BETWEEN SPIN-DIPOLE AND GAMOW-TELLER GIANT RESONANCES

## Abstract

The branching ratios for E1 transitions between the spin-dipole (SD) and Gamow-Teller (GT) giant resonances in 90Nb and 208Pb are evaluated. Assuming the main GT-state has the wave function close to that for the “ideal" GT-state, we reduced the problem to calculate the SD and GT strength functions. These strength functions are evaluated within an extended continuum-RPA approach.

1. Experimental and theoretical studies of direct-decay properties of various giant resonances (GRs) allow to check their microscopic (particle-hole) structure in a quantitative way. Experimentally the partial branching ratios for the direct proton decay of the GTR and SDR(-) are obtained from the (3He,t) and (3He,tp) experiments. The data at E(3He)=450 MeV have been analyzed for the 208Pb target-nucleus  and have been rather successfully described within an extended continuum-RPA approach . The data of the 90Zr(3He,tp) reaction are expected to be analyzed soon . Another possibility to investigate the microscopic structure of the SDR(-) and GTR is to study $`\gamma `$-transitions between these resonances. The branching ratios for the $`\gamma `$-decay from the SDR(-) to the GTR can be deduced from the (3He,t$`\gamma `$) coincidence experiments .

The intensity of the E1 $`\gamma `$-transitions between GT and SD(-) states in 90Nb and 48Sc was evaluated within a TDA-approach in Ref. . However, the results obtained in this work are presented in the form, which does not allow to compare them directly with the experimental branching ratios. The aim of the present work is to evaluate the branching ratio for the E1 transitions between the SDR(-) and the GTR (main peak) in 208Bi and 90Nb within the approach given in Ref. . In this approach we use:
(i) the continuum-RPA (CRPA);
(ii) the phenomenological mean field and the Landau-Migdal particle-hole interaction together with some partial self-consistency conditions;
(iii) a phenomenological description of the doorway-state coupling to many-quasiparticle configurations.

2. We start from consideration of the CRPA polarizabilities $`𝒫_{JLS}^{(,+)}(\omega )`$ and the strength functions $`S_{JLS}^{(,+)}(\omega )`$ corresponding to the external fields $`V_{JLSM}^{(,+)}=\underset{a}{}V_{JLSM}^{(,+)}(x_a)`$. Here, $`V_{JLSM}^{(,+)}(x)=r^LT_{JLSM}(\stackrel{}{n})\tau ^{(,+)}`$ (with $`J=S=1;L=0`$ and $`J=0,1,2;L=S=1`$ for GT and SD excitations, respectively), $`T_{JLSM}(\stackrel{}{n})=\underset{m}{}C_{Lm1Mm}^{JM}Y_{Lm}(\stackrel{}{n})\sigma ^{Mm}`$ is the irreducible spin-angular tensor operator of the rank $`J`$, and $`\sigma ^\mu `$ and $`\sqrt{2}\tau ^{(\pm )}`$ are the spherical spin and isospin Pauli matrices, respectively; $`\omega `$ is the excitation energy measured from the energy of the parent-nucleus ground-state. For the considered spin GRs, the CRPA polarizabilities and the strength functions exhibit resonance-like behaviour, corresponding to the excitation of isolated particle-hole type doorway states. In particular, using the Breit-Wigner parameterization of the polarizabilities and the strength functions:

$`S_{J11}^{()}(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}Im𝒫_{J11}^{()}(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}Im{\displaystyle \underset{s}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{R_s}{\omega \omega _s+\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_s^{}}};`$ (1)
$`S_{101}^{()}(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}Im𝒫_{101}^{()}(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}Im{\displaystyle \frac{R_g}{\omega \omega _g+\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_g^{}}}`$ (2)
we can evaluate the doorway parameters: strength $`R_{s(g)}`$, energy $`\omega _{s(g)}`$, and total escape width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{s(g)}^{}`$. Similarly to the work of Ref. , we consider only the main GT doorway-state with the maximal strength $`R_g`$.

3. The radiative width for the E1-transitions between SD(-) and GT doorway-states is determined by the squared matrix elements of the electric dipole operator $`D_\mu ^{(3)}=\frac{1}{2}e\underset{a}{}r_aY_{1\mu }(\stackrel{}{n}_a)\tau _a^{(3)}`$ according to the expression:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sg}^\gamma =\frac{16\pi }{9}\left(\frac{\omega _s\omega _g}{\mathrm{}c}\right)^3\underset{\mu }{}\overline{\left|\left(D_\mu ^{(3)}\right)_{gs}\right|^2}.$$
(3)
Here, the bar denotes averaging over $`M_s`$ and summation over $`M_g`$, where $`M`$ are projections of the doorway-state total angular momentum. To describe the radiative width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sg}^\gamma `$ in terms of the SD(-) doorway-state strength $`R_s`$, we start from the assumption that the component of main GT state with projection $`M_G`$ exhausts the total GT strength $`R_G={\displaystyle \frac{(NZ)}{4\pi }}`$. With this assumption the following equations, which are similar to those used in Ref. , are valid:

$`|G=R_G^{1/2}V_{101M_G}^{()}|0,V_{101M_G}^{(+)}|0=0,`$ (4)
$`\left(D_\mu ^{(3)}\right)_{sG}=R_G^{1/2}\left([D_\mu ^{(3)},V_{101M_G}^{()}]\right)_{s0}.`$ (5)
Here, $`|G`$ is the wave function of the “ideal" GTR, $`|0`$ is the parent-nucleus ground-state wave function. Note that the commutator in eq.(5) is a component of the operator $`V_{J11M}^{()}`$ divided by $`\sqrt{4\pi }`$. Assuming the main GT state has the wave function close to that for the “ideal" GT state, we can derive from eqs. (3) and (5) the expression for the radiative width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sg}^\gamma `$:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sg}^\gamma =\frac{4e^2}{9R_G}\left(\frac{\omega _s\omega _g}{\mathrm{}c}\right)^3x_gR_s,$$
(6)
where the factor $`x_g=R_g/R_G`$ is the strength of the main GT state related to the total one. Via this factor we take into account the difference between the “ideal” GT state and the main GT doorway state. The width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Sg}^\gamma `$ for the E1 transitions from the SDR(-) to the GTR (main peak) can be schematically described with the use of eq.(6). Assuming all the $`J`$-components of the SDR(-) have the same energy $`\omega _S`$, equal to the experimental SDR(-) energy, and both GRs have no spreading and escape widths, the radiative width can be expressed in terms of the non-energy-weighted sum rule for spin-dipole transitions:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Sg}^\gamma ={\displaystyle \frac{4e^2}{9}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _s\omega _g}{\mathrm{}c}}\right)^3x_g{\displaystyle \frac{r^2^{()}}{(1B)}},`$ (7)
$`r^2^{()}={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{NZ}}{\displaystyle \varrho ^{()}(r)r^4𝑑r},B={\displaystyle \frac{R^{(+)}}{R^{()}}}.`$ (8)
Here, $`B`$ is the SDR(+) excitation strength related to that for the SDR(-), and $`\varrho ^{()}(r)`$ is the neutron-excess density.

4. The SD(-) strength distribution and the doorway-state coupling to many-quasiparticle configurations are taken into account within the approach of Ref. . Similarly to the SD(-) polarizability (to the “forward-scattering amplitude") of eq.(1) we can also use the Breit-Wigner parametrization for the “reaction amplitude" $`M_g^J(\omega )`$, corresponding to both the excitation of $`J^{}`$ doorway states and their E1 decay to the main GT state:

$$M_g^J(\omega )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}\underset{s}{}\frac{R_s^{1/2}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sg}^\gamma )^{1/2}}{\omega \omega _s+\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_s^{}}=\frac{\alpha _g^{1/2}}{\sqrt{2\pi }}\underset{s}{}\frac{R_s\sqrt{(\omega _s\omega _g)^3}}{\omega \omega _s+\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_s^{}},$$
(9)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sg}^\gamma `$ is the radiative width of eq. (6) and $`\alpha _g={\displaystyle \frac{4e^2}{9(\mathrm{}c)^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_g}{R_G}}`$. Thus, the structure of the resultive amplitude $`M_g^J`$ is found to be close to that of the SD polarizability of eq. (1).

Then the doorway-state coupling to many-quasiparticle configurations is phenomenologically taken into account. To get the expressions for the energy-averaged “reaction amplitudes" we substitute the escape widths $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_s^{}`$ in eqs. (1), (9) and the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g^{}`$ in eq. (2) by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_s^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_S^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_G^{}`$, respectively. The mean doorway-state spreading width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_S^{}`$ is found from the condition that the total width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the SD(-) energy-averaged strength function $`\overline{S}_{SD}^{()}(\omega )=\underset{J=0,1,2}{}(2J+1)\overline{S}_{J11}^{()}(\omega )`$ coincides with the total width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{exp}`$ of the SDR(-) in the experimental inclusive reaction cross section. The same procedure is used to evaluate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_G^{}`$. Because the doorway-state spreading widths $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_S^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_G^{}`$ are found to be rather large, we take approximately into account a variation of factor E$`{}_{}{}^{3}{}_{\gamma }{}^{}`$ over the doorway-state resonances, using in the expression for the squared energy-averaged “reaction amplitude" $`\overline{M}_J(\omega )`$ the corresponding averaged value:

$$\overline{(\omega _s\omega _g)^3}=(\omega _s\omega _g)^3+3(\omega _s\omega _g)\sigma _{gs}^2,\sigma _{gs}=\sqrt{(\mathrm{\Gamma }_s^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_S^{})^2+(\mathrm{\Gamma }_g^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_G^{})^2}/2.35.$$
(10)
The ratio of the integrated energy-averaged “cross sections":

$$b_g=\underset{J=0,1,2}{}(2J+1)\left|\overline{M}_g^J(\omega )\right|^2\mathrm{d}\omega /\overline{S}_{SD}^{()}(\omega )d\omega ,$$
(11)
can be considered as the partial branching ratio for the E1-decay from the SDR(-) to the GTR (main peak). The branching ratio described schematically is determined by using the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{gS}^\gamma `$ of eq. (7) as $`b_g^{schem}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{gS}^\gamma /\mathrm{\Gamma }_S^{}`$.

5. The partial self-consistency conditions and choice of model parameters are described in Ref.. In particular, the isoscalar mean field amplitude $`U_0`$ and the amplitude $`f^{}`$ of the isovector part of the Landau-Migdal particle-hole interaction are chosen for each nucleus to reproduce in calculations the experimental proton and neutron separation energies. The values of $`U_0`$ and $`f^{}`$ are listed in Table 1. The ability of the model to describe the single-neutron-hole spectrum of 207Pb has been demonstrated in Ref. .

The spin-dipole sum rule $`\varrho ^{()}(r)r^4𝑑r`$ is evaluated for 90Zr and 208Pb in the same way as described in Ref. . The sum rule is determined by the mean-squared radius $`r^2^{()}`$ of eq. (7) (the corresponding calculated values are listed in Table 1). The amplitude $`g^{}`$ of the spin-isospin part of the Landau-Migdal particle-hole interaction is chosen for each nucleus to reproduce in calculations the experimental GTR energy. The values of $`g^{}`$ are listed in Table 1 along with the relative strengths of the GT main peak $`x_g`$.

The basic assumption used in this work is the substitution of the RPA creation operator, corresponding to the main GT state, by the operator $`R_G^{1/2}V_{101M_G}^{()}`$ with taking $`x_g`$ as the correction factor (see eqs.(5),(6)). Although the accuracy of this assumption is not-too-high because the $`x_g`$ values are not-too-close to unity (Table 1), it seems enough to make a reasonable comparison of the calculated branching ratios with coming experimental data.

The partial branching ratios $`b_g^{schem}`$ for the gamma-decay of the SDR(-) to GTR are calculated within the framework of the schematic description. In the calculations, the experimental energy $`21.1`$ MeV  ($`17.9`$ MeV ) is used for the SDR(-) in 208Bi (90Nb) along with the experimental energy $`15.5`$ MeV  ($`8.7`$ MeV ) for the GTR. The calculated values of $`b_g^{schem}`$ are given in Table 1.

To take into account the distribution of the spin-dipole particle-hole strength over the SDR(-), the doorway-state spreading widths for both the SDR(-) and GTR, we calculated partial radiative branching ratios $`b_g`$ by eqs. (9)-(11) within the framework of the more refined description. Along with the spin-dipole doorway-state parameters calculated in the same way given in Ref. , we used in the calculations for 208Bi (90Nb) (i) the mean spin-dipole doorway-state spreading width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SD}^{}=4.7`$ MeV found in Ref.  ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SD}^{}=5.0`$ MeV to reproduce the experimental total SDR width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SDR}^{exp}=7.8`$ MeV ) and (ii) the experimental total width of the GTR $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{GTR}^{exp}=(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{GTR}^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{GTR}^{})^{exp}=3.72`$ MeV  ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{GTR}^{exp}=4.4`$ MeV ). The calculated values of $`b_g`$ are given in Table 1.

The partial branching ratios $`b_g^{schem}`$ and $`b_g`$ for the $`\gamma `$-decay from the SDR(-) to the GTR in 208Pb are rather different (Table 1). The difference is mainly due to variation of the factor E$`{}_{}{}^{3}{}_{\gamma }{}^{}`$ over the SDR(-) doorway states taken into account within the realistic description. It is also noteworthy that the calculated mean SDR(-)-energy $`23.1`$ MeV  is higher than the experimental value of $`21.1\pm 0.8`$ MeV  (for 90Nb the corresponding values are $`19.2`$ MeV and $`17.9`$ MeV , respectively).

In conclusion, we evaluate the branching ratios of the $`\gamma `$-decay from the SDR(-) to the GTR in 208Bi and 90Nb within the extended continuum-RPA approach. These predictions are expected to be appropriate for a comparison with the corresponding experimental data.

6. The authors are grateful to M.N. Harakeh, M. Fujiwara, and A. Krasznahorkay for stimulating discussions and valuable remarks. The authors acknowledge generous financial supports from the “Nederlansdse organisatie voor wetenshappelijk onderzoek" (V.A.R.) and from the RCNP COE fund (M.H.U.).


text:
# Bilayer Coherent and Quantum Hall Phases: Duality and Quantum Disorder

\[

## Abstract

We consider a fully spin-polarized quantum Hall system with no interlayer tunneling at total filling factor $`\nu =1/k`$ (where $`k`$ is an odd integer) using the Chern-Simons-Ginzburg-Landau theory. Exploiting particle-vortex duality and the concept of quantum disordering, we find a large number of possible compressible and incompressible ground states, some of which may have relevance to recent experiments of Spielman et.al. . We find interlayer coherent compressible states without Hall quantization and interlayer-incoherent incompressible with Hall quantization in addition to the usual $`(k,k,k)`$ Halperin states, which are both interlayer-coherent and incompressible.

\]

Bilayer quantum Hall systems have been a subject of great experimental and theoretical interest  for more than a decade. In particular, spin-polarized bilayer quantum Hall systems with little or no inter-layer tunneling ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SAS}0`$) at the total Landau-level filling factor $`\nu =1`$ have been studied intensively because the layer index serves as a pseudospin index with $`U(1)`$ symmetry, leading to the possibility of many interesting quantum phases and quantum phase transitions associated with the pseudospin $`U(1)`$ symmetry. Among the many exotic possibilities discussed in the literature in this context are long-range pseudospin order (the so-called spontaneous interlayer phase coherence) associated with the spontaneous breaking of the pseudospin $`U(1)`$ symmetry, a linearly dispersing collective Goldstone mode, bilayer pseudospin superfluidity, the associated Josephson effect, topological defects (merons, skyrmions, and vortices), and a Kosterlitz-Thouless phase transition at finite-temperature. The subject is of considerable current interest as a result of the recent appearance  of an experimental paper reporting the possible observation in a bilayer tunneling measurement of the predicted Goldstone mode at $`\nu =1`$ associated with pseudospin $`U(1)`$ symmetry-breaking. There have been several recent preprints  providing possible theoretical explanations of the data presented in .

In this letter, we consider a somewhat more general situation (still with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SAS}=0`$, although a generalization to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SAS}0`$ is straightforward) with total filling factor $`\nu =1/k`$ (with $`k`$ an odd integer and $`k=1`$ being the special situation primarily discussed in the literature) from a new theoretical perspective hitherto not considered in the literature. We extend the Chern-Simons-Landau-Ginzburg (CSLG) theory for the Halperin $`(k,k,k)`$ state  to describe the posibility of quantum disordering of the charge and pseudospin degrees of freedom. Our quantum disordering procedure relies on the $`U(1)`$ particle-vortex duality in $`2+1`$ dimensions and leads to a large class of incompressible and compressible bilayer states at $`\nu =1/k`$; some are interlayer coherent, others are not. One of our important conclusions is that the existence of interlayer coherence is neither necessary nor sufficient for the existence of an incompressible bilayer $`\nu =1`$ (or $`1/k`$) quantum Hall state (even for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SAS}=0`$). It is possible to have Hall quantization at $`\nu =1/k`$ without having interlayer coherence and vice-versa. We believe that this important result of ours may have implications for the experimental observations in ref. , where the putative Goldstone mode associated with interlayer coherence has presumably been observed in a state which is either compressible or is very weakly incompressible. We therefore raise the interesting (but, by no means, definitive) possibility that the bilayer system in ref.  is not the Halperin $`(1,1,1)`$ ground state, as has been universally assumed, in which interlayer coherence and incompressibility occur together, but is one of the new quantum disordered interlayer coherent and compressible states (e.g. the Hall insulator  state we find below) predicted in this paper. The experimental data presented in ref.  provide some circumstantial evidence in support of such a tentative claim: (1) the $`\nu =1`$ zero-bias tunneling conductance peak reported in  is much broader than the weak ($`>1k\mathrm{\Omega }`$) and shallow $`\rho _{xx}`$ minimum seen in the data ($`\rho _{xy}`$ quantization has not been observed) even at the very low temperature of $`40mK`$; (2) the zero-bias tunneling peak width exists  over $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu 0.7`$ and, in fact, contains even the $`\rho _{xx}`$ maximum within it, raising some doubts about the standard interpretation of the state as the $`(1,1,1)`$ state, which is manifestly an incompressible state; (3) $`\rho _{xx}`$ for $`\nu <1`$ in ref.  shows striking insulating behavior as it increases extremely sharply with decreasing $`\nu `$, indicating that it may be a Hall insulator for these $`\nu `$. We point out that all the quantum disordered compressible states found by us break translational invariance. In the clean limit, they are Wigner crystal/charge density wave/striped phase-type states in each layer. In the limit that disorder plays a large role (a more likely scenario for ref.  where the carrier density is very low and consequently disorder effects may be important), they are better-described as disorder-induced localized phases. We believe that some of the bilayer striped (compressible) interlayer coherent phases recently discussed in the literature  within a microscopic Hartree-Fock calculation may actually belong to the class of translational invariance-broken compressible coherent quantum disordered phases we find below.

Our construction has precedents in the high-$`T_c`$ superconductivity literature , where it has been used to describe spin-charge separation. Here, we implement pseudospin-charge separation to disorder the pseudospin and charge currents separately. In the context of superconductivity (or superfluidity), it is clear that magnetism and superconductivity (or superfluidity) are distinct effects. The triplet order parameter of the $`A`$-phase of 3He breaks both spin and particle number symmetries, but these symmetries may be restored separately; restoring the latter alone would lead to a magnetic state of solid Helium. Our construction can be understood in a similar vein, with the interlayer coherent $`(1,1,1)`$ quantum Hall state replacing triplet superconductivity. Our work is also related to the hierarchy construction of Lee and Kane , but these authors only considered the condensation of charged vortices and skyrmions, which does not lead to our cornucopia of states with the same total $`\sigma _{xy}`$.

We begin our discussion of bilayer quantum Hall systems at $`\nu =1/k`$ with a CSLG theory  that describes incompressible interlayer coherent states with the Halperin $`(k,k,k)`$ wavefunction. We neglect real spin, assuming complete spin polarization, but allow unequal layer populations, i.e. the so-called unbalanced case, $`\rho _1\rho _2`$, where $`\rho _i`$ is the electron density in layer $`i`$. The imaginary-time action for this theory is ($`\mathrm{}=c=e=1`$):

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}\{\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}(_0ia_0iA_0^{(i)})\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$ (4)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}|[\stackrel{}{}i\stackrel{}{a}i\stackrel{}{A}^{(i)}]\mathrm{\Psi }_i|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{U}{2}}(\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_i\rho _i)^2\}`$
$`+V(\mathrm{\Psi }_1^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_1\rho _1)(\mathrm{\Psi }_2^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_2\rho _2)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4\pi k}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }a_\mu _\nu a_\lambda `$
where the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$’s are the bosonic fields which describe electrons in the two layers and the final term in (4) is the Chern-Simons term, $`_{CS}(a)`$, which enforces the fermionic statistics of the electrons. The gauge fields $`A_\mu ^{(1,2)}`$ couple to electrons in layers 1 and 2 respectively. By choosing $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ to be arbitrary we allow for charge imbalance between the layers. For simplicity, we replace the long-range Coulomb interaction by short-range interactions. Intra-layer interactions are not equal to inter-layer interactions, $`UV`$, so the model has only $`U(1)`$ pseudospin symmetry, rather than the full $`SU(2)`$ which would be obtained if $`U=V`$.

We take $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i=\sqrt{\rho _i}e^{i\theta _i}`$ and introduce $`\theta =(\theta _1+\theta _2)/2`$, $`\varphi =(\theta _1\theta _2)/2`$. Pseudospin $`U(1)`$ is the symmetry $`\varphi \varphi +\mathrm{const}`$. When $`\varphi `$ spontaneously chooses a direction, this symmetry is broken and the oscillations of $`\varphi `$ describe the Goldstone mode associated with this broken symmetry. Similarly, we define $`A_\mu ^C=(A_\mu ^{(1)}+A_\mu ^{(2)})/2`$ and $`A_\mu ^I=(A_\mu ^{(1)}A_\mu ^{(2)})/2`$. $`A^C`$ couples to the total charge of the system while $`A^I`$ couples to the charge difference between the two layers, i.e. the pseudospin. Vortices in $`\theta _1`$ or $`\theta _2`$ are called merons . They come in four varieties since they can be either vortices or antivortices in $`\theta _1`$ or $`\theta _2`$, and they have charge $`\pm \rho _{1,2}/[(\rho _1+\rho _2)k]`$. Vortices in $`\theta _1`$ and $`\theta _2`$ can be combined to form a vortex in $`\theta `$. In pseudospin language, they are skyrmions , carrying charge $`\pm 1/k`$. A vortex in $`\theta _1`$ can be combined with an anti-vortex in $`\theta _2`$ to form a vortex in $`\varphi `$ of charge $`(\rho _1\rho _2)/[(\rho _1+\rho _2)k]`$.

If we integrate out the amplitude fluctuations in (4) and set $`(\rho _1+\rho _2)/m=1`$, $`K_3=(\rho _1\rho _2)/(\rho _1+\rho _2)`$, we obtain

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2v_c^2}}\left(_0\theta a_0A_0^C\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2v_s^2}}\left(_0\varphi A_0^I\right)^2`$ (8)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\stackrel{}{}\theta \stackrel{}{a}\stackrel{}{A}^C\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\stackrel{}{}\varphi \stackrel{}{A}^I\right)^2`$
$`+K_3\left(\stackrel{}{}\theta \stackrel{}{a}\stackrel{}{A}^C\right)\left(\stackrel{}{}\varphi \stackrel{}{A}^I\right)`$
$`_{CS}(a)`$
where $`v_{c,s}`$ are the velocities of the charge and pseudospin collective modes.

Using the standard $`U(1)`$ particle-vortex duality  for both $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ and their vortex excitations, we rewrite (8) as

$`\stackrel{~}{}_D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _C}{2}}\left|\left(_\mu ib_\mu ^C\right)\mathrm{\Phi }_C\right|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _I}{2}}\left|\left(_\mu ib_\mu ^I\right)\mathrm{\Phi }_I\right|^2`$ (11)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _0}{4}}(F_{\alpha \beta }^C)^2\pi kiϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }b_\mu ^C_\nu b_\lambda ^Cib_\mu ^Cϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }_\nu A_\lambda ^C`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _0}{4}}(F_{\alpha \beta }^I)^2ib_\mu ^Iϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }_\nu A_\lambda ^I\kappa _3F_{0\alpha }^CF_{0\alpha }^I`$
where $`\kappa _0=1/(1K_3^2)`$, $`\kappa _3=K_3/(1K_3^2)`$, and $`F_{\alpha \beta }^{C,I}`$ is the field strength associated with $`b_\mu ^{C,I}`$. (To avoid clutter, we set $`v_{c,s}=1`$; they may be restored by dividing all temporal derivatives by the appropriate velocity.) The fields in (11) are related to those of (8) according to

$`ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }_\nu b_\lambda ^C_\mu \theta a_\mu A_\mu ^C+\left(1\delta _{\mu 0}\right)K_3\left(_\mu \varphi A_\mu ^I\right)`$ (12)
$`ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }_\nu b_\lambda ^I_\mu \varphi A_\mu ^I+\left(1\delta _{\mu 0}\right)K_3\left(_\mu \theta a_\mu A_\mu ^C\right)`$ (13)
$`\rho _{C,I}\mathrm{Im}\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_{C,I}^{}\left(_\mu ib_\mu ^{C,I}\right)\mathrm{\Phi }_{C,I}\right]ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }_\nu _\lambda \{\theta ,\phi \}`$ (14)
The right-hand-sides of the first two equations are, repsectively, the conserved charge and pseudospin currents of (8). $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{C,I}`$ create vortices in $`\theta `$ or $`\varphi `$, respectively. We have implicitly assumed that vortices in $`\theta _{1,2}`$ (i.e. merons) are higher in energy and can, therefore, be neglected. As in the high-$`T_c`$ case , this assumption leads to charge-pseudospin separation and a particular form of topological order. We want to consider the more general situation in which the lowest energy excitation is a composite formed by $`n`$ vortices in $`\theta `$ and $`m`$ vortices in $`\varphi `$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{n,m}\mathrm{\Phi }_C^n\mathrm{\Phi }_I^m`$, where $`n,m`$ are integers. In this case, we may write the effective action as:

$`\stackrel{~}{}_D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\rho _{n,m}\left|\left(_\mu inb_\mu ^Cimb_\mu ^I\right)\mathrm{\Phi }_{n,m}\right|^2`$ (17)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _0}{4}}(F_{\alpha \beta }^C)^2\pi kiϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }b_\mu ^C_\nu b_\lambda ^Cib_\mu ^Cϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }_\nu A_\lambda ^C`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _0}{4}}(F_{\alpha \beta }^I)^2ib_\mu ^Iϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }_\nu A_\lambda ^I\kappa _3F_{0\alpha }^CF_{0\alpha }^I`$
When there is no vortex condensate, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{n,m}=0`$ for all $`n,m`$, we may drop the vortex part of the action and obtain the response functions from the remaining (quadratic) terms in $`b_\mu ^C`$, $`b_\mu ^I`$:

$`\sigma _{xx}^{CC}`$ $`=`$ $`0\sigma _{xy}^{CC}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi k}}`$ (18)
$`\sigma _{xx}^{IC}`$ $`=`$ $`0\sigma _{xy}^{IC}={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _3}{\kappa _0}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi k}}`$ (19)
$`\sigma _{xx}^{II}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa _0}}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\omega }}\sigma _{xy}^{II}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _3}{\kappa _0}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi k}}`$ (20)
Equations (18) tell us that we have an incompressible quantum liquid with quantized Hall conductance. The first of equations (20) describes an interlayer superfluid with a singularity at zero frequancy due to the Goldstone mode associated with broken pseudospin symmetry. It is remarkable that our simple analysis allows us to calculate the weight of this mode as a function of charge imbalance between the layers

$`I(\rho _1\rho _2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa _0}}=I_0\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\rho _1\rho _2}{\rho _1+\rho _2}}\right)^2\right]`$ (21)
This is a simple prediction of our theory (which is, in principle, easily verifiable experimentally) of the spectral weight of the pseudospin Goldstone mode for the usual $`(k,k,k)`$-type incompressible coherent phase or the insulating compressible intra-layer coherent phase in the unbalanced ($`\rho _1\rho _2`$) situation.

Various quantum disordered phases of the $`(k,k,k)`$ state can also be described using (17). They result when $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{n,m}`$ condenses for some $`n,m`$. When this occurs, the gauge field $`nb_\mu ^C+mb_\mu ^I`$ aquires a gap. After integrating it out, we obtain the response functions of the corresponding quantum disordered phases which we discuss below.

When $`m=0`$ and $`n0`$ we find that we destroy the quantum Hall effect without destroying interlayer coherence, $`\sigma _{xx}^{CC}=\sigma _{xy}^{CC}=0`$ and $`\sigma _{xx}^{II}=\frac{1}{\kappa _0}\frac{i}{\omega }`$. So, relation (21) will be satisfied even when the state becomes compressible. As we mentioned in our introductory comments, this state may be relevant to the experiment of . Since the flux of $`b_\lambda ^C`$ is fixed by $`ϵ_{0\nu \lambda }_\nu b_\lambda ^C=\rho _1+\rho _2`$, it must penetrate the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{n,0}`$ condensate. As a result, translational symmetry must be broken, either spontaneously by Wigner crystallization or manifestly by disorder. In the perfectly clean limit, the flux of $`b_\lambda ^C`$ enters the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{n,0}`$ condensate in an analogue of the Abrikosov flux lattice. From (17), we see that flux tubes in $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{n,0}`$ carry flux $`2\pi /n`$ and, hence, charge $`1/n`$, equally distributed between the two layers. Hence, this is a Wigner crystal of charge $`1/n`$ quasiparticles which is coherent between the two layers. In the strong disorder limit, this can be viewed as a localized phase of charge $`1/n`$ quasiparticles.

When $`m0`$, we find that interlayer coherence is destroyed but the quantum Hall effect is not

$`\sigma _{xx}^{CC}`$ $`=`$ $`0\sigma _{xy}^{CC}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi k}}`$ (22)
$`\sigma _{xx}^{IC}`$ $`=`$ $`0\sigma _{xy}^{IC}={\displaystyle \frac{n}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi k}}`$ (23)
$`\sigma _{xx}^{II}`$ $`=`$ $`0\sigma _{xy}^{II}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{m}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi k}}`$ (24)
At small frequencies, $`\sigma _{xx}^{II}i\omega `$ so this phase corresponds to an interlayer insulator, rather than a superfluid. We notice the following remarkable property shared by interlayer coherent and incoherent states: $`\sigma _{xy}^{CC}\sigma _{xy}^{II}=\left(\sigma _{xy}^{IC}\right)^2`$. When interlayer coherence is destroyed, the pseudospin Hall conductances are quantized. Since a vortex corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{0,1},\mathrm{\Phi }_{0,2},\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Phi }_{0,m1}`$, or no vortex at all can be threaded along either of the non-contractible loops of the torus, there is an $`m^2`$-fold ground state degeneracy in the pseudospin sector which, when combined with the $`k`$-fold degeneracy of the charge sector, gives a total ground state degeneracy of $`km^2`$ on the torus. For general $`n,m`$, these states break translational invariance. However, in the case $`n=0`$, $`m0`$, $`ϵ_{0\nu \lambda }_\nu b_\lambda ^I=\rho _1\rho _2`$, so translational symmetry will only be broken if the layers are unbalanced, in which case the charge difference between the layers will be modulated.

We note that there is a straightforward generalization akin to the hierarchy construction which involves the introduction of an additional Chern-Simons field, $`\beta _\mu `$, which attaches $`2l`$ flux tubes to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{n,m}`$. Our earlier construction was simply the $`l=0`$ case. The $`l0`$ modification suggests a new set of states with the same conductances as in (22), (23), but with $`\sigma _{xy}^{II}`$ (24) replaced by $`\sigma _{xy}^{II}=(1/2\pi k)(n^22lk)/m^2`$. It may be shown, using standard arguments of CSLG theory , that these states have a ground state degeneracy of $`km^2`$ on the torus; this is independent of $`l`$ and is the same as in the $`l=0`$ case. When $`m=0`$, we obtain an inter-layer coherent state with $`\sigma _{xy}^{CC}=2l/2\pi (2lk\pm 1)`$.

A physical interpretation for many of these states may be given by considering a quantum Hall state obtained by condensing composites which consist of $`p`$ electrons in layer 1 and $`q`$ electrons in layer 2. We assume that the composite is tightly-bound so that we can ignore its internal structure. Let $`\mathrm{\Psi }_c`$ be the operator that creates the auxiliary boson defined by statistical transmutation of such a composite. The CSLG theory for $`\mathrm{\Psi }_c`$ takes the form

$`_c`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_c^{}(_0a_0pA_0^{(1)}qA_0^{(2)})\mathrm{\Psi }_c`$ (27)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}\left|\left[\stackrel{}{}i\stackrel{}{a}ip\stackrel{}{A}^{(1)}iq\stackrel{}{A}^{(2)}\right]\mathrm{\Psi }_c\right|^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4\pi k_c}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }a_\mu _\nu a_\lambda `$
If we take $`k_c=k(p+q)^2`$, then we have a quantum Hall state with $`\sigma _{xy}^{CC}=1/(2\pi k)`$. To ensure that the composite has the correct statistics, we must have $`k`$ odd. For the particular case of quasiparticle pairs, this relation has been discussed by Halperin in the context of Laughlin’s wavefunctions . Proceeding to the dual representation of (27) as earlier, we obtain

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{4}}(\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu })^2i(p+q)\stackrel{~}{b}_\mu ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }_\nu A_\lambda ^C`$ (29)
$`i(pq)\stackrel{~}{b}_\mu ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }_\nu A_\lambda ^I\pi k(p+q)^2iϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }\stackrel{~}{b}_\mu _\nu \stackrel{~}{b}_\lambda `$
where $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ is the dual gauge field describing the currents of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_c`$. Using (27) or (29), we find the response functions of the quantum Hall state of composite objects $`\sigma _{xy}^{CC}=\frac{1}{2\pi k}`$, $`\sigma _{xy}^{IC}=\frac{1}{2\pi k}\frac{(pq)}{(p+q)}`$, and $`\sigma _{xy}^{II}=\frac{1}{2\pi k}\frac{(pq)^2}{(p+q)^2}`$. From the Chern-Simons theory (29), we deduce a ground state degeneracy of $`k(p+q)^2`$ on the torus. Hence, we find precisely the same conductance tensor and ground state degeneracy on the torus which we found earlier, with $`p+q=m`$ and $`pq=n`$.

Let us consider two special cases. For $`p=1`$ and $`q=0`$, so that quantum liquid is in one layer only, we have $`m=1`$, and $`n=1`$, so it may be described by the condensation of a composite formed by one vortex in $`\theta `$ and one vortex in $`\phi `$, i.e. a double vortex in $`\theta _1`$. When $`p=1`$ and $`q=1`$ we have the paired state suggested in . It is described by $`m=2`$ and $`n=0`$, i.e. by the condensation of double vortices in $`\phi `$. In this case, we see from (17) that when the layers are unbalanced, the charge difference enters in a Wigner crystal of isospin $`1/2`$ quasiparticles (charge difference between the layers $`e/2`$).

To summarize, we have used a $`U(1)`$ particle-vortex duality to extend a CSLG theory for $`\nu =1/k`$ (with $`k`$ an odd integer) for bilayer quantum Hall systems to discuss the states in which either Hall quantization or interlayer coherence (“pseudospin suerfluidity”) is individually destroyed (with the other still present) as well as the more usual states in which both are present (e.g. the $`(1,1,1)`$ state at $`\nu =1`$) or both are absent. The compressible interlayer coherent states are not translationally invariant and are therefore likely to be disorder-driven localized states or Wigner crystal (or CDW) states in each layer. Our most important new conceptual results are the identification of the theoretical possibility that there may be $`\nu =1`$ (or $`1/k`$) bilayer pseudospin coherent states which are compressible (unlike the usual $`(1,1,1)`$ state which is incompressible and interlayer coherent) and the observation that the experimental data presented in ref.  are not manifestly inconsistent with the exciting prospect that such a pseudospin-coherent compressible state (most likely a disorder-driven Hall insulating phase) may actually be playing a role in ref. .

It is a great pleasure to acknowledge discussions with B. Halperin, J.P. Eisenstein, and N. Read. CN and SDS acknowledge the Aspen Center for Physics. ED is supported by the Harvard Society of Fellows. CN is supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DMR-9983544 and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. SDS is supported by the Office of Naval Research.


text:
# Interacting Stochastic Process and Renormalization Theory

## 1 Introduction

There is a very fruitful interrelation between probability theory and quantum field theory -. In this note we consider a stochastic process that shows the same divergencies as quantum electrodynamics or $`\phi ^4`$ theory in the 4-dimensional spacetime. Therefore this one-dimensional model can be used for studying the fundamental problem of non perturbative investigation of renormalized quantum field theory . It can also find applications in theory of phase transitions .

The simplest nontrivial model of quantum field theory in $`d`$dimensional spacetime is the model of scalar field with the $`\phi ^4`$-interaction. In one dimensional case ($`d=1`$) this model is equivalent to an anharmonic oscillator and it does not have ultraviolet divergencies. In this note we will study a more interesting model with the interaction that contains fractional derivatives. It is well known that trajectories of the Wiener process are Hölder-continuous with exponent $`\alpha <1/2`$. The property of a function to be Hölder-continuous is related to the property of having a fractional derivative.

Let us remind that the free scalar massless quantum field on the semi-axis is the Wiener process. The scalar massive one-dimensional quantum field is an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck stochastic process $`x(t)=x(t,\omega )`$ . In order to introduce an interacting Ornstein-Uhlenbeck stochastic process we will use fractional derivatives $`x^{(\alpha )}(t)`$ ($`0\alpha <1`$) . Stochastic differential equations with fractional derivatives  are considered in  on $`p`$adic number fields.

In this note an interacting Ornstein-Uhlenbeck stochastic process with interaction of the form $`x^{(\alpha )}(t)^4`$ will be discussed. Using Bogoliubov’s $`R`$operation we investigate ultraviolet divergencies for various parameters $`\alpha `$. Ultraviolet properties of this one-dimensional model in the case $`\alpha =3/4`$ are similar to those in the $`\phi _4^4`$ theory but there are extra counterterms. It is shown that the model is two-loops renormalizable. For $`5/8\alpha <3/4`$ the model has a finite number of divergent Feynman diagrams. In the case $`\alpha =2/3`$ the model is similar to the $`\phi _3^4`$ theory. If $`0\alpha <5/8`$ then the model does not have ultraviolet divergencies at all. Finally if $`\alpha >3/4`$ then the model is nonrenormalizable.

This paper is organized as follows. In the next section the interacting stochastic process is defined. Feynman diagrams for this process are described in Sect.2. A brief discussion of $`R`$operation is given in Sect.4. Analysis of divergent Feynman diagrams for the interacting stochastic process is presented in Sect.5. Finally, in Sect.6 interesting particular cases of the interacting stochastic process are discussed.

## 2 The Interacting Stochastic Process

Let $`x(t)=x(t,\omega )`$ be an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck stochastic process with the correlation function

$$E(x(t)x(\tau ))=F(t\tau )=\frac{1}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{e^{ip(t\tau )}}{p^2+m^2}𝑑p=\frac{e^{m|t\tau |}}{2m}$$
(1)
where $`m>0`$. There exists a spectral representation of the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck stochastic process

$$x(t,\omega )=e^{ikt}\zeta (dk,\omega )$$

where $`\zeta (dk,\omega )`$ is a stochastic measure. We define the fractional derivative as

$$x^{(\alpha )}(t,\omega )=|k|^\alpha e^{ikt}\zeta (dk,\omega )$$
(2)
If $`0\alpha <1/2`$ then $`x^{(\alpha )}(t)`$ is a stochastic process. If $`\alpha 1/2`$ then one needs a regularization described below. We will use distribution notations and write

$$\zeta (dk,\omega )=\stackrel{~}{x}(k,\omega )dk$$

$$\stackrel{~}{x}(k,\omega )=\frac{1}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}x(t,\omega )e^{ikt}𝑑t$$

We want to give a meaning to the following correlation functions

$$K(t_1,\mathrm{},t_N)=E(x(t_1)\mathrm{}x(t_N)e^{\lambda U})/E(e^{\lambda U})$$
(3)
for all $`N=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ Here

$$U=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}x^{(\alpha )}(\tau )^4g(\tau )𝑑\tau $$
(4)
where $`g(\tau )`$ is a nonnegative test function with a compact support (the volume cut-off), $`x^{(\alpha )}(t)`$ denotes the fractional derivative (2) and $`\lambda 0`$. We will denote the expectation value as $`E(A)=A`$. In this notations

$$x(t)x(\tau )=\frac{1}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{e^{ip(t\tau )}}{p^2+m^2}𝑑p$$

If $`\alpha 5/8`$ then the expectation value in (3) has no meaning even if we expand it into the perturbation series in $`\lambda `$ because there are ultraviolet divergencies (see below). We have to introduce a cutoff stochastic process $`x_\varkappa (t)`$

$$x_\varkappa (t,\omega )=_\varkappa ^\varkappa e^{ikt}\zeta (dk,\omega )$$

Instead of $`U`$ in (3) we put

$$U_\varkappa =:x_\varkappa ^{(\alpha )}(\tau )^4:g(\tau )d\tau $$

where

$$x_\varkappa ^{(\alpha )}(t,\omega )=_\varkappa ^\varkappa |p|^\alpha \stackrel{~}{x}(p,\omega )e^{ipt}𝑑p$$

Here

$$:x__\varkappa ^{(\alpha )}(\tau )^4:=\underset{\varkappa }{\overset{\varkappa }{}}\mathrm{}\underset{\varkappa }{\overset{\varkappa }{}}𝑑p_1\mathrm{}𝑑p_4|p_1|^\alpha \mathrm{}|p_4|^\alpha e^{i\tau (_{j=1}^4p_j)}$$

$$:\stackrel{~}{x}(p_1)\stackrel{~}{x}(p_2)\stackrel{~}{x}(p_3)\stackrel{~}{x}(p_4):$$

where the normal product is defined by the relation (Wick’s theorem)

$$:\stackrel{~}{x}(p_1)\stackrel{~}{x}(p_2)\stackrel{~}{x}(p_3)\stackrel{~}{x}(p_4):=\stackrel{~}{x}(p_1)\stackrel{~}{x}(p_2)\stackrel{~}{x}(p_3)\stackrel{~}{x}(p_4)$$
(5)
$$\stackrel{~}{x}(p_1)\stackrel{~}{x}(p_2):\stackrel{~}{x}(p_3)\stackrel{~}{x}(p_4):+\mathrm{}$$

$$\stackrel{~}{x}(p_1)\stackrel{~}{x}(p_2)\stackrel{~}{x}(p_3)\stackrel{~}{x}(p_4)\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{x}(p_1)\stackrel{~}{x}(p_4)\stackrel{~}{x}(p_2)\stackrel{~}{x}(p_3)$$

and

$$\stackrel{~}{x}(p)\stackrel{~}{x}(k)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{\delta (p+k)}{p^2+m^2}$$

The problem is to prove that after the renormalization there exists a limit of the correlation functions

$$x(t_1)\mathrm{}x(t_N)e^{\lambda U_\varkappa }_{ren}$$

as $`\varkappa \mathrm{}`$. We will consider this problem below by using the Bogoliubov-Parasiuk $`R`$-operation.

Remark. Quadratic interaction

$$U=x^{(\alpha )}(\tau )^2g(\tau )𝑑\tau $$

is a well defined stochastic variable if $`\alpha <1/2`$. One can go beyond the boundary $`\alpha =1/2`$ if one takes the normal product

$$U=:x^{(\alpha )}(\tau )^2:g(\tau )d\tau $$

An heuristic definition of the correlation function (3) is given by the functional integral

$$K(t_1,\mathrm{},t_N)=\phi (t_1)\mathrm{}\phi (t_N)e^S𝒟\phi /e^S𝒟\phi $$
(6)
where the action

$$S=\left[\frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi }(t)^2+\frac{m^2}{2}\phi (t)^2+\lambda g(t)\phi ^{(\alpha )}(t)^4\right]𝑑t$$
(7)
and $`\phi (t)`$ is a real valued function on the real axis.

## 3 Feynman Diagrams

Feynman diagrams (or graphs) are convenient tools for labeling and recording terms that appear while integrating polynomials with respect to a Gaussian measure, see . For the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck stochastic process one has

$$x(t_1)\mathrm{}x(t_l)=\underset{pairings}{}F(t_{i_1}t_{i_2})\mathrm{}F(t_{i_{l1}}t_{i_l})$$
(8)
where $`F(t)`$ is defined by (1) and the sum extends over all distinct ways of choosing the pairs $`\{t_{i_k},t_{i_{k+1}}\}`$.

For the correlation function (3) one has the perturbative expansion

$$x(t_1)\mathrm{}x(t_N)e^{\lambda U}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(\lambda )^n}{n!}x(t_1)\mathrm{}x(t_N)U^n$$

Then by using (8) one writes

$$x(t_1)\mathrm{}x(t_N)U^n=$$

$$=𝑑\tau _1\mathrm{}𝑑\tau _Nx(t_1)\mathrm{}x(t_N)x^{(\alpha )}(\tau _1)^4\mathrm{}x^{(\alpha )}(\tau _n)^4=$$

$$=\underset{\{\mathrm{\Gamma }\}}{}K_\mathrm{\Gamma }(t_1,\mathrm{},t_N)$$

where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ ranges over a set of graphs and $`K_\mathrm{\Gamma }(t_1,\mathrm{},t_N)`$ is a function of $`t_1,\mathrm{},t_N`$ assigned to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. A graph (or diagram) is a collection of vertices (represented as points), lines (represented as line segments joining vertices), and legs (represented as line segments which attach at one endpoint only to a vertex).

First let us describe a Feynman graph that corresponds to

$$A=x(t_1)\mathrm{}x(t_N)x^{(\alpha )}(\tau _1)^4\mathrm{}x^{(\alpha )}(\tau _n)^4$$

Each factor $`x(t_i)`$ is represented by a vertex with a leg and each factor $`x^{(\alpha )}(\tau _i)^4`$ in $`A`$ is represented by a single vertex with $`4`$ legs. Now the integral

$$𝑑\tau _1\mathrm{}𝑑\tau _NA$$

is represented by a sum of graphs obtained by pairing the legs in the graph corresponding to $`A`$ in all possible manners. Examples of Feynman diagrams are presented in (Fig.4-4).

Now each variable $`t_j`$ is represented by a leg. Each variable $`\tau _i`$ is represented by a vertex with $`4`$ legs or lines. Each line joining vertices $`s_k`$ and $`s_l`$ (here $`s_k`$ stands for $`t_j`$ or $`\tau _i`$) gives rise to a function $`F(s_is_k)`$ defined in (1). One has

$$K_\mathrm{\Gamma }(t_1,\mathrm{},t_N)=𝑑\tau _1\mathrm{}𝑑\tau _N\underset{\underset{legs}{lines}}{}F(s_ks_l)$$

In momentum representation we obtain the expression of the form

$$\stackrel{~}{x}(p_1)\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{x}(p_N)e^{\lambda U}=\underset{\{\mathrm{\Gamma }\}}{}G_\mathrm{\Gamma }(p_1,\mathrm{},p_N)$$

The sum runs over all diagrams $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with $`N`$ external legs that can be build up using $`4`$-vertices corresponding to the $`x^{(\alpha )4}`$ term. Contributions from the connected diagrams with $`n`$ $`4`$vertices come from the expression

$$\stackrel{~}{x}(p_1)\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{x}(p_N)(\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}\stackrel{~}{x}(k_i^{(1)})|k_i^{(1)}|^\alpha )\mathrm{}(\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}\stackrel{~}{x}(k_i^{(n)})|k_i^{(n)}|^\alpha )$$

$$\delta (\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}k_i^{(1)})\mathrm{}\delta (\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}k_i^{(n)})\underset{i,j}{}dk_i^{(j)}$$

Using the pairing (5) we obtain the contribution from a diagram $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with $`L`$ internal lines in the form

$$(\underset{l=1}{\overset{L}{}}\frac{|k_l|^{2\alpha }}{k_l^2+m^2})(\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\delta (\xi _i))𝑑k_1\mathrm{}𝑑k_L$$
(9)
Here $`\xi _i`$ denotes the linear combination of momenta assigned to the $`i`$-th vertex. We integrate over $`(n1)`$ momenta using $`\delta (\xi _i)`$ and obtain

$$\delta (\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}p_j)I_\mathrm{\Gamma }𝑑k_1\mathrm{}𝑑k_l$$
(10)
where $`l=L(n1)`$. Here $`I_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the unrenormalized integrand of the form

$$I_\mathrm{\Gamma }=\underset{j=1}{\overset{L}{}}\frac{|q_j|^{2\alpha }}{q_j^2+m^2}$$
(11)
where $`q_l`$ are linear combinations of the internal momenta $`k_1,\mathrm{},k_L`$ and external momenta $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_N`$.

Remark. If we make a change of variables $`x^{(\alpha )}(t)=y(t)`$ in the original Lagrangian then we obtain an interacting stochastic process with $`\lambda y(t)^4`$ interaction and propagator

$$\stackrel{~}{y}(p)\stackrel{~}{y}(k)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{|p|^{2\alpha }\delta (p+k)}{p^2+m^2}$$

This remark explains the appearance of the factor $`|q_j|^{2\alpha }`$ in (11).

## 4 $`R`$-Operation

A diagram $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is called proper (or one-particle-irreducible) if it is connected and can not be separated in two parts by cutting a single line. The canonical degree $`D(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ of a proper diagram is defined by the dimension of the corresponding Feynman integral with respect to the integration variables. From (9) and (10) we have

$$D=D(\mathrm{\Gamma })=(2\alpha 2)L+l=(2\alpha 1)Ln+1$$
(12)
A diagram $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is called superficially divergent if its dimension $`D(\mathrm{\Gamma })0`$. A proper diagram $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ which is superficially divergent ($`D(\mathrm{\Gamma })0`$) is called renormalization part. A $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-forest $`W`$ is a set of diagrams satisfying the following conditions:

1. the elements of $`W`$ are renormalization parts of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$
2. any two elements of $`W`$ are non-overlapping

Let $`I_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be an unrenormalized integrand. The Bogoliubov-Parasiuk prescription for the renormalized integral can be written as

$$R_\mathrm{\Gamma }=\underset{W}{}\underset{\gamma W}{}(t^\gamma )I_\mathrm{\Gamma }$$

where the sum runs over all $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-forests. Here $`t^\gamma I_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ denotes the Taylor series with respect to the appropriate external variables around zero up to order $`D(\gamma )`$. The renormalized integral $`R_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is considered as a result of action of $`R`$-operation to $`I_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. This formula is equivalent to the original recursive $`R`$-operation defined by using the reduced diagrams. It is one of the main results of the Bogoliubov-Parasiuk-Hepp-Zimmerman (BPHZ) theory that one has the absolute convergence of the renormalized integral

$$J_\mathrm{\Gamma }=𝑑k_1\mathrm{}𝑑k_lR_\mathrm{\Gamma }$$

The same result can be obtained if we introduce the cut-off $`\varkappa `$, then make a reparametrization of the parameters in the original (bare) Lagrangian, and finally remove the cut-off. For example the renormalized Euclidean interaction Lagrangian of the $`\lambda \phi ^4`$ theory in $`4`$dimensional space is

$$=\frac{Z_31}{2}\left((\mathrm{}\phi )^2+\frac{m^2}{2}\phi ^2\right)+\frac{\delta m^2}{2}\phi ^2+\lambda (Z_41)\phi ^4$$

Here $`Z_3`$, $`Z_4`$, and $`\delta m^2`$ are represented as series in $`\lambda `$ and the corresponding coefficients in the expansions of $`Z_3`$ and $`Z_4`$ have logarithmic divergencies as $`\varkappa \mathrm{}`$ and coefficients of $`\delta m^2`$ have quadratic divergencies.

We will show at the two-loop level that in the $`x^{(\alpha )4}`$ model with $`\alpha =3/4`$ the renormalized Lagrangian has a similar structure

$$=\frac{Z_31}{2}\left(\dot{x}(t)^2+\frac{m^2}{2}x(t)^2\right)+\frac{\delta m^2}{2}x(t)^2$$

$$+\frac{Z_21}{2}x^{(3/4)}(t)^2+\lambda (Z_41)x^{(\alpha )}(t)^4$$

Note the term $`x^{(3/4)}(t)^2`$ which is discussed below.

## 5 Divergent Diagrams

The action (7) and the correlation functions (3), (6) describe a one dimensional model of quantum field theory. Although one-dimensional it is an interesting and instructive model because it demonstrates the most striking property of quantum field theory, i.e. its ultraviolet divergencies. By expanding (3) or (6) into the perturbation series in $`\lambda `$ one obtains the Feynman diagrams (9). Let us investigate the convergence of the analytical expressions corresponding to the Feynman diagrams by using the canonical degree $`D(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ of the diagram (12)

$$D=L(2\alpha 1)n+1$$
(13)
If for a given diagram $`D<0`$ then it is superficially finite, otherwise it is divergent.

Let us consider a proper diagram with $`n`$ vertices, $`L`$ internal lines, and $`E`$ legs. We have the following relation

$$4n=2L+E$$
(14)
Note that for any nontrivial connected diagram

$$2nLn2$$
(15)
$$E2n$$
(16)
Theorem If $`\alpha <5/8`$ then all Feynman diagrams of the interacting stochastic process are superficially finite. If $`5/8\alpha <3/4`$ then there exists a finite number of divergent diagrams, moreover all divergent diagrams have only $`0`$ or $`2`$ legs. If $`\alpha =3/4`$ then the model is renormalizable and all divergent diagrams have only $`0`$, $`2`$ or $`4`$ external lines. Finally, if $`\alpha >3/4`$ then the model is nonrenormalizable.

Proof Let us prove the first statement of the theorem, i.e. if $`\alpha <5/8`$ then $`D<0`$ for any $`n2`$. Using (13) and (15) we have

$$D|_{\alpha <5/8}<2L\frac{5}{8}Ln+1=\frac{L4n+4}{4}$$
(17)
$$\frac{2n4n+4}{4}=\frac{2n}{2}0$$

From (17) it follows that $`D<0`$ for any $`\alpha <5/8`$.

Let us consider $`\alpha =5/8`$. Similarly to (17) from (13) we have

$$D|_{\alpha =5/8}=\frac{L4n+4}{4}\frac{2n}{2}0$$
(18)
Therefore only two-point ($`n=2`$) diagram could be divergent (in this case $`D=0`$). Rewriting (18) in the form

$$D|_{\alpha <5/8}=\frac{4(E+L)}{4}$$
(19)
From (19) it follows that only diagram with $`E=0,L=4,n=2`$ (Fig. 4) is divergent.

In the case when $`5/8<\alpha <3/4`$ we can write

$$\alpha =\frac{3}{4}\epsilon $$
(20)
where $`0<\epsilon <1/8`$. Substituting (20) into (13) and using (15) we have

$$D|_{\alpha =3/4\epsilon }=\frac{L}{2}2L\epsilon n+1\frac{2n}{2}2n\epsilon n+1=12n\epsilon $$
(21)
Thus for any given $`\epsilon >0`$ (and therefore any $`\alpha <3/4`$) there exists a number $`N`$ such that for any $`nN`$ the canonical dimension $`D<0`$. Hence there exists only a finite number of divergent diagrams. Rewriting (21) in the form

$$D|_{\alpha =3/4\epsilon }=2L\epsilon +\frac{4E}{4}$$

It follows that $`D0`$ only if $`E<4`$, i.e. $`E=0`$ or $`E=2`$ and the model is super-renormalizable.

Let us consider the case when $`\alpha =3/4`$. Using (14) and (13) we have

$$D|_{\alpha =3/4}=1\frac{E}{4}$$
(22)
The equality (22) means that all divergent diagrams have only $`0,2,\text{or}4`$ legs and the model is renormalizable.

Finally if $`\alpha >3/4`$ we have

$$D|_{\alpha >3/4}=\frac{L}{2}n+1=\frac{2nE+1}{2}\frac{1}{2}>0$$
(23)
Therefore if $`\alpha >3/4`$ then all proper diagrams are divergent. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 6 Examples

### 6.1 The stochastic process with $`\alpha =3/4`$ and $`\phi _4^4`$ theory

In this section the case $`\alpha =3/4`$ is discussed in more detail. The stochastic process with this $`\alpha `$ is very interesting because the structure of ultraviolet divergencies in this case is similar to that of the $`\phi _4^4`$ theory. Indeed, all proper vacuum diagrams as well as $`2`$ and $`4`$leg diagrams are divergent.

However let us note an important difference. For the two-loop self-energy diagram (Fig. 4) we have

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\varkappa (p)=_\varkappa ^\varkappa 𝑑k_\varkappa ^\varkappa 𝑑q\frac{|k|^{3/2}|q|^{3/2}|k+qp|^{3/2}}{(k^2+m^2)(q^2+m^2)((k+qp)^2+m^2)}$$

The leading divergence of this integral as $`\varkappa \mathrm{}`$ is proportional to $`\varkappa ^{1/2}`$. Therefore the renormalized Lagrangian should have a counter-term of the form

$$C\varkappa ^{1/2}:x^{(3/4)}(t)^2:$$

The fractional derivative $`x^{(3/4)}`$ appears in this expression due to a factor $`|p|^\alpha `$ that according to the Feynman rules discussed in Sect.4 corresponds to every external leg.

The thorough consideration of the stochastic process with $`\alpha =3/4`$ requires a further work.

### 6.2 The stochastic process with $`\alpha =5/8`$

The stochastic process with $`\alpha =5/8`$ is the simplest stochastic process that has ultraviolet divergencies. From Theorem it follows that in this case only the vacuum diagram (Fig. 4) is divergent. The contribution of this diagram is proportional to

$$\underset{\varkappa }{\overset{\varkappa }{}}𝑑k_1\underset{\varkappa }{\overset{\varkappa }{}}𝑑k_2\underset{\varkappa }{\overset{\varkappa }{}}𝑑k_3\frac{|k_1|^{5/4}|k_2|^{5/4}|k_3|^{5/4}|k_1+k_2+k_3|^{5/4}}{(k_1^2+m^2)(k_2^2+m^2)(k_3^2+m^2)((k_1+k_2+k_3)^2+m^2)}$$

### 6.3 The stochastic process with $`\alpha =2/3`$ and $`\phi _3^4`$ theory

The interacting stochastic process with $`\alpha =2/3`$ is interesting because it is the simplest stochastic process which has non-vacuum ultraviolet divergencies. From Theorem it follows that in this case only diagrams shown on (Fig. 4,4,4) are divergent. The structure of divergencies is similar to the $`\phi _3^4`$ theory , however there is a difference. Besides the divergent constants corresponding to the vacuum diagrams the renormalized Lagrangian should also contain the term

$$C\mathrm{ln}\varkappa :x^{(2/3)}(t)^2:$$

Here the divergence comes from the two-loop integral

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\varkappa (p)=_\varkappa ^\varkappa 𝑑k_\varkappa ^\varkappa 𝑑q\frac{|k|^{4/3}|q|^{4/3}|k+qp|^{4/3}}{(k^2+m^2)(q^2+m^2)((k+qp)^2+m^2)}$$

Renormalized correlation functions are

$$x(t_1)\mathrm{}x(t_N)e^{\lambda U_\varkappa }/e^{\lambda U_\varkappa }$$

where

$$U_\varkappa =:x_\varkappa ^{(2/3)}(\tau )^4:g(\tau )d\tau +C\lambda \mathrm{ln}\varkappa :x_\varkappa ^{(2/3)}(\tau )^2:g(\tau )d\tau $$

We do not write the contribution from the vacuum diagrams.

## 7 Discussions and Conclusions

In this paper we have considered renormalization of the interacting stochastic process that has ultraviolet divergencies similar to those that appear in multidimensional models of quantum field theory. We have studied the stochastic process in perturbation theory. It would be interesting to establish the existence of the stochastic process for $`\alpha =2/3`$ nonperturbatively by using methods used in $`\phi _3^4`$ theory . Then properties of trajectories could be studied.

Especially interesting is the case when $`\alpha =3/4`$ which is similar to the $`\phi _4^4`$ theory. In this case the proof of the renormalizability of the stochastic process even in perturbation theory requires a further studying. We have discussed the renormalization in this case only at two-loop level. It would be also very interesting to investigate the critical behavior of the interacting stochastic process in the strong coupling regime on the lattice.

## 8 Acknowledgments

The author is grateful to L. Accardi for invitation to the Centro Vito Volterra Universitá di Roma ”Tor Vergata”, to H.-H.Kuo for stimulating discussions of renormalization of quantum white noise, and to I.V. Volovich for constant attention to this work.