text:
# On the Solution of the Number-Projected Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov Equations

## Abstract

The numerical solution of the recently formulated number-projected Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov equations is studied in an exactly soluble cranked-deformed shell model Hamiltonian. It is found that the solution of these number-projected equations involve similar numerical effort as that of bare HFB. We consider that this is a significant progress in the mean-field studies of the quantum many-body systems. The results of the projected calculations are shown to be in almost complete agreement with the exact solutions of the model Hamiltonian. The phase transition obtained in the HFB theory as a function of the rotational frequency is shown to be smeared out with the projection.

The mean-field models with effective forces have been quite successful in describing the gross features of the quantum many-body systems. Although, the mean-field approaches are appropriate for systems with a very large number of particles, they have also been quite useful to describe the properties of finite quantum systems, for instance the atomic nucleus. The ground-state properties of atomic nuclei have been well described using the Hartree-Fock (HF) and Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov (HFB) mean-field approaches with various effective interactions . However, the mean-field application to a finite system suffers from a fundamental problem that it leads to sharp phase transitions. The phase transition is an artefact of the mean-field approach and is not observed in the experimental data. The phase transition obtained is due to the neglect of the quantal fluctuations, which become quite strong for finite systems.

There are various methods in the literature to consider the quantal fluctuations on the mean-field solution for the finite system. One very powerful method is through the restoration of the broken-symmetries by employing the projection methods . In the present work, we shall consider the restoration of the gauge-symmetry associated with the particle-number. It is known in the HFB studies that one often obtains a phase transition from the superfluid paired-phase to the normal unpaired-phase. This phase transition is due to the fluctuations in the particle-number, the HFB wavefunction does not have a well defined particle-number. In most of the analysis, the particle-number fluctuations are treated in an approximate way by employing the Lipkin-Nogami prescription . However, it has been shown that this approach also breaks down at high-rotational frequencies and as a matter of fact violates the variational principle .

The exact particle number-projection can be performed by using the gradient methods . But this approach is numerically quite involved and has been applied to only separable interactions with restricted model spaces . There has been an unresolved issue whether HFB like equations can be obtained with the projected- energy functional. This problem has been recently solved  and it has been shown that it is possible to obtain the HFB equations from an arbitrary real energy functional which is completely expressible in terms of the density-matrix and the pairing-tensor. The projected-energy functional can be expressed in terms of the density-matrix and the pairing-tensor and one obtains the HFB equations with modified expressions for the pair-gap and the Hartree-Fock potential. The expressions for these quantities acquire a relatively simple form for the case of particle number-projection .

To check the applicability of the number projected-HFB (PHFB) formalism, detailed numerical analysis is carried out in a simple cranked-deformed shell model Hamiltonian . Although, this model cannot be used directly to study the experimental data, but it contains all the basic ingredients of a more realistic model. The advantage in this model is that it can be solved exactly and it is possible to check the accuracy of an approximate method. We consider that it is quite instructive to test the number-projection method in a cranking model as the Coriolis forces destroy the pair-correlations and the results become quite sensitive to the treatment of the pairing-interaction. As we shall demonstrate, the present projection method reproduces almost exactly the results of the shell model calculations for all the cases studied.

The model Hamiltonian consists of a cranked deformed one-body term, $`h^{}`$ and a scalar two-body delta-interaction . The one-body term is the familiar cranked-Nilsson mean-field potential which takes into account of the long-range part of the nucleon-nucleon interaction. The residual short-range interaction is specified by the delta-interaction. The deformed shell model Hamiltonian employed is given by

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`h_{def}^{}+V_2,`$ (1)
$`H`$ $`=`$ $`h_{def}\omega J_x+V_2,`$ (2)
where,

$$h_{def}=4\kappa \sqrt{\frac{4\pi }{5}}\underset{m}{}<jm|Y_{20}|jm>c_{jm}^{}c_{jm},$$
(3)
and

$$V_2=\frac{1}{2}\underset{LM}{}E_LA_{LM}^{}A_{LM},$$
(4)
with $`A_{LM}^{}=(c_j^{}c_j^{})_{LM}`$ and $`A_{LM}=(A_{LM}^{})^{}`$. For the antisymmetric-normalized two-body matrix-element ( $`E_J`$ ), we use the delta-interaction which for a single j-shell is given by

$$E_L=G\frac{(2j+1)^2}{2(2L+1)}\left[\begin{array}{ccc}j& j& L\\ \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}& 0\end{array}\right]^2,$$
(5)
where the symbol $`[]`$ denotes the Clebsch-Gordon coefficient. We use $`G=gR_{nl}^4r^2𝑑r`$ as our energy unit and the deformation energy $`\kappa `$ is related to the deformation parameter $`\beta `$. For the case of $`h_{11/2}`$ shell, $`\kappa `$=2.4 approximately corresponds to $`\beta =0.23`$.

It has been shown in ref.  that the variation of the number projected-energy functional results in the HFB matrix equation

$$^{}\left(\begin{array}{c}U\\ V\end{array}\right)=E_i^{}\left(\begin{array}{c}U\\ V\end{array}\right),$$
(6)
where

$`^{}=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\epsilon _{n_1n_2}^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n_1n_2}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n_1n_2}\lambda \delta _{n_1n_2}& \mathrm{\Delta }_{n_1n_2}\\ \mathrm{\Delta }_{n_1n_2}^{}& \epsilon _{n_1n_2}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n_1n_2}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n_1n_2}^{}+\lambda \delta _{n_1n_2}\end{array}\right).`$ (9)
The number-projected expressions for $`\epsilon _{n_1n_2}^{}`$,$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n_1n_2},\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n_1n_2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{n_1n_2}`$ are given by

$`\epsilon ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\varphi y(\varphi )\left(Y(\varphi )\mathrm{Tr}[e^{}\rho (\varphi )]+[12ie^{i\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\varphi \rho (\varphi )]e^{}C(\varphi )\right)}`$ (11)
$`+h.c.`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\varphi y(\varphi )\left(Y(\varphi )\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}[\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi )\rho (\varphi )]+\frac{1}{2}[12ie^{i\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\varphi \rho (\varphi )]\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi )C(\varphi )\right)}`$ (13)
$`+h.c.`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\varphi y(\varphi )\left(Y(\varphi )\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}[\mathrm{\Delta }(\varphi )\overline{\kappa }^{}(\varphi )]2ie^{i\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\varphi C(\varphi )\mathrm{\Delta }(\varphi )\overline{\kappa }^{}\right)}`$ (15)
$`+h.c.`$
$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{1}{2}d\varphi y(\varphi )e^{2i\varphi }C\left(\varphi \right)\mathrm{\Delta }(\varphi )(..)^T,$$
(16)
with

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n_1n_3}(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n_2n_4}{}}\overline{v}_{n_1n_2n_3n_4}\rho _{n_4n_2}(\varphi ),`$ (17)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{n_1n_2}(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n_3n_4}{}}\overline{v}_{n_1n_2n_3n_4}\kappa _{n_3n_4}(\varphi ),`$ (18)
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{n_3n_4}^{}(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n_1n_2}{}}\overline{\kappa }_{n_1n_2}^{}(\varphi )\overline{v}_{n_1n_2n_3n_4},`$ (19)
$`\rho (\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`C(\varphi )\rho ,`$ (20)
$`\kappa (\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`C(\varphi )\kappa =\kappa C^T(\varphi ),`$ (21)
$`\overline{\kappa }(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2i\varphi }\kappa C^{}(\varphi )=e^{2i\varphi }C^{}(\varphi )\kappa ,`$ (22)
$`C(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2i\varphi }\left(1+\rho (e^{2i\varphi }1)\right)^1,`$ (23)
$`x(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\varphi (N)}det(e^{i\varphi })}{\sqrt{detC(\varphi )}}},`$ (24)
$`y(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x(\varphi )}{𝑑gx(\varphi )}},{\displaystyle 𝑑gy(\varphi )}=1,`$ (25)
and

$$Y(\varphi )=ie^{i\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\varphi C(\varphi )i𝑑\varphi ^{}y(\varphi ^{})e^{i\varphi ^{}}\mathrm{sin}\varphi ^{}C(\varphi ^{}).$$
(26)
The quantities $`\rho `$ and $`\kappa `$ in the above equations are the HFB density-matrix and the pairing-tensor. $`e^{}`$ in (11) are the single-particle energies of the cranked-deformed potential (1) and $`\overline{v}`$ in (17-19) is the uncoupled antisymmetric matrix-element of the two-body delta-interaction (5).

The term designated by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in (15) does not appear in the ordinary HFB formalism and it can be immediately shown that it vanishes for the gauge-angle $`\varphi =0`$. This term orginates from the variation of the pairing-energy with respect to the density-matrix. In normal HFB, the pairing-energy depends only on the pairing-tensor, but the PHFB pairing-energy also depends on the density-matrix through the norm-overlap. Actually, in the general the norm-overlap depends on both density-matrix and the pairing-tensor . But for the special case of number-projection, the term in the overlap-matrix which depends on the pairing-tensor can be rewritten in terms of the density-matrix by using the HFB relation $`(\rho \rho ^2=\kappa \kappa ^{})`$. Due to this transformation, the expression for $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in (16) has a very simple appearance and reduces to the familiar form in the canonical representation .

The integration in (11-16) over the gauge-angle has been performed using the Gauss-Chebyshev quadrature method . In this method, the integration over the gauge-angle is replaced by a summation. It can be shown  that the optimal number of mesh-points in the summation which eliminates all the components having undesired particle numbers is given by

$$M=\mathrm{max}(\frac{1}{2}N,\mathrm{\Omega }\frac{1}{2})+1,$$
(27)
where N is the number of particles and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the degeneracy of the single-j shell. In the present study with N=6 and $`\mathrm{\Omega }=6`$, the optimal number of points required is $`M=4`$.

In the present analysis of a single-j shell, the basis in which the HFB matrix is constructed are the magnetic sub-states of $`j=11/2`$ with $`m=(11/2,9/2,\mathrm{}\mathrm{}..,9/2,11/2)`$. The summation indices $`n_1,n_2,n_3`$ and $`n_4`$ in the all the expressions given above run over these magnetic states. In order to check the dependence of the HFB and PHFB results on the pairing interaction, the calculations have been performed with monopole (L=0), monopole plus quadrupole (L=0 and 2), and with full delta-interaction. The results of the HFB and PHFB will be compared with the exact results for the three pairing-interactions.

The results of the cranking calculations with monopole-pairing force are compared in Fig. 1. In the three-pannels of the figure, we compare the total-energy $`(E_{tot})`$, the pairing-energy $`(E_{pair})`$ and the alignment $`(<J_x>)`$ which is the expectation value of the angular-momentum along the rotational x-axis, as a function of the rotational frequency. The expressions for the total energy is given by

$$E_{tot}=𝑑\varphi y(\varphi )\left(H_{sp}(\varphi )+H_{ph}(\varphi )+H_{pp}(\varphi )\right),$$
(28)
where

$`H_{sp}(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\left(e\rho (\varphi )\right),`$ (29)
$`H_{ph}(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi )\rho (\varphi )\right),`$ (30)
$`H_{pp}(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }(\varphi )\overline{\kappa }^{}(\varphi )\right).`$ (31)
The expressions for the pairing-energy and the alignment are given by

$`E_{pair}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\varphi H_{pp}(\varphi )},`$ (32)
$`<J_x>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\varphi \mathrm{Tr}\left(J_x\rho (\varphi )\right)}.`$ (33)
It can be easily shown that for the gauge-angle, $`\varphi =0`$, the normal HFB expressions for these quantities are recovered.

It is apparent from the top pannel of Fig. 1 that the results of the exact shell model and the PHFB are very similar, the two curves are almost indistinguishable for all the frequency points. The results of HFB on the other hand deviate considerably from the exact results at lower frequencies. However, it can be seen from Fig. 2 that the HFB results converge towards the exact results with increasing rotational frequency. The HFB energy before the bandcrossing at $`\mathrm{}\omega =0.5`$G is shifted from the exact energy by a constant amount and can be improved by renormalising the strength of the pairing-interaction. Therefore for the total energy, the HFB approach is not a poor approximation. The actual problem in HFB lies in the analysis of the pairing-energy and the alignment which are shown in the two lower-pannels of Fig. 1. The HFB pairing-energy has a finite value till $`\mathrm{}\omega =0.45`$G and then suddenly goes to zero at $`\mathrm{}\omega =0.5`$G. This transition is an artefact of the HFB approach as is clearly evident from Fig. 1. The PHFB pairing-energy does drop at the bandcrossing but has a finite value at all the rotational frequencies. This feature of the pairing- energy is also reflected in the alignment, which is determined by the competition between the Coriolis forces and the pairing- correlations. The alignment till $`\mathrm{}\omega =0.45`$G is very similar in all the three cases but then HFB value suddenly jumps to $`<J_x>=10`$, the exact and the PHFB values on the on other hand do not show this sharp transition. The gain in alignment at the first-crossing, referred to as the (AB)-crossing, is quite similar in all the cases, however, in HFB the crossing occurs somewhat earlier.

The results of pairing-interaction with monopole plus quadrupole terms are shown in Fig. 2. The comparison among HFB, PHFB and the exact results is quite similar to Fig. 2. The total HFB energy is shifted by a constant factor from exact and PHFB energies before the bandcrossing. After the crossing, the HFB results become closer to the exact. The HFB pairing-energy depicts a transition and PHFB pairing-energy on the other hand drops smoothly at the bandcrossing. However, the HFB gain in alignment at the (AB)-crossing is much lower than 10 and has clearly a wrong behaviour after the crossing.

The results with the full delta-interaction are presented in Fig. 3. The HFB total-energy is now in a better agreement with exact and PHFB as compared to the results shown in Figs. 1 and 2. In fact, it is evident by comparing the three figures that the total-energy improves by including higher multipoles in the pairing-interaction, maximum deviation is noted for the monopole case. This appears to be in contradiction to our basic understanding of the mean-field approach, one normally expects that HFB or BCS is a better approximation for the pure monopole-pairing. However, it should be mentioned that in our HFB and PHFB analysis, we have included all the terms in the Hamiltonian. In particular, the particle-hole contribution ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) amounts to about 6G in the total-energy and is maximum with the full delta-interaction. If one excludes this contribution, the discrepancy would be largest for the delta-interaction.

The pairing-energy in Fig. 3 again depicts a phase transition at $`\mathrm{}\omega =0.55`$G which is slightly higher than with monopole-interaction. The HFB (AB)-crossing with full delta-interaction is now close to the exact and PHFB. The gain in alignment at the (AB)-crossing is lower than 10 as in the case of monopole and quadrupole pairing force. The overall agreement with full delta-interaction appears to be better for HFB. The good agreement between PHFB and exact on the other hand is independent of the interaction used.

To conclude, in the present work the number-projected HFB approach recently developed has been applied to an exactly soluble cranked-deformed shell Hamiltonian. The main motivation has been to check the numerical applicability of the projection method. It is clear from the present study that the projected Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov approach gives an accurate description of the yrast-states of the model Hamiltonian. The transition from a superfluid to the normal phase obtained in the HFB theory is shown to be smeared out with the projection.

We would like to stress that the main advantage of the present projection method is that it has the same structure as that of normal HFB equations. Therefore, one can use the existing HFB computer codes and only the expressions for the Hartree-Fock potential and the pairing-field need to be redefined. Instead of the normal HFB fields, in the projection method one needs to calculate the projected quantities as given by (11-16). In the present model study, we find that the numerical work involved in the projection is similar to performing the bare HFB calculations. For each rotational frequency, the average CPU time on Pentium (166MHz) was 6.14s with projection as compared to 5.97s for normal HFB. The present projection method, therefore, preserves all the mathematical and computational simplicity of the HFB mean-field approach.


format: text

text:
# Precursory Metal-Insulator transition in a small cluster of the ‘t-J ’ model: Exact analytic results

## A Appendix: Eigenfunctions for the 4-site cluster with 1 hole

The basis for $`S_z=\frac{1}{2}`$ is (note the order):

$`\left\{\begin{array}{c}|\begin{array}{cc}\hfill & \hfill \\ \hfill & 0\hfill \end{array},|\begin{array}{cc}\hfill & \hfill \\ \hfill & 0\hfill \end{array},|\begin{array}{cc}\hfill & \hfill \\ \hfill & 0\hfill \end{array},|\begin{array}{cc}\hfill & 0\hfill \\ \hfill & \hfill \end{array},|\begin{array}{cc}\hfill & 0\hfill \\ \hfill & \hfill \end{array},|\begin{array}{cc}\hfill & 0\hfill \\ \hfill & \hfill \end{array},\\ |\begin{array}{cc}\hfill & \hfill \\ 0\hfill & \hfill \end{array},|\begin{array}{cc}\hfill & \hfill \\ 0\hfill & \hfill \end{array},|\begin{array}{cc}\hfill & \hfill \\ 0\hfill & \hfill \end{array},|\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \hfill \\ \hfill & \hfill \end{array},|\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \hfill \\ \hfill & \hfill \end{array},|\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \hfill \\ \hfill & \hfill \end{array}\end{array}\right\}`$

and the eigenstates can be classified by their total spin $`S`$ and total component $`S_z`$:

$`S_z=\frac{1}{2}`$ $`S=\frac{3}{2}`$  Eigenenergies Eigenfunctions (not normalized)    $`\frac{J}{2}`$ $`(1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1)`$  $`\frac{J}{2}`$ $`(0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0)`$  $`\frac{J}{2}2t`$ $`(1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1)`$  $`\frac{J}{2}+2t`$ $`(1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1)`$

$`S_z=\frac{1}{2}`$ $`S=\frac{1}{2}`$  Eigenenergies Eigenfunctions (not normalized)    $`Jt`$ $`(1,2,1,1,2,1,1,2,1,1,2,1)`$  $`J+t`$ $`(1,2,1,1,2,1,1,2,1,1,2,1)`$  $`t`$ $`(1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,1)`$  $`t`$ $`(1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,1)`$  $`\frac{J}{2}(1+\sqrt{1+12\lambda ^2})`$ $`|c_1=(1,1,0,a,b,c,a,b,c,1,1,0)`$  $`\frac{J}{2}(1+\sqrt{1+12\lambda ^2})`$ $`|c_2=(1,0,1,b,2b,b,b,2b,b,1,0,1)`$  $`\frac{J}{2}(1+\sqrt{1+12\lambda ^2})`$ $`(1,1,0,d,e,f,d,e,f,1,1,0)`$  $`\frac{J}{2}(1+\sqrt{1+12\lambda ^2})`$ $`(1,0,1,e,2e,e,e,2e,e,1,0,1)`$

$`a(\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{2+\sqrt{1+12\lambda ^2}}{6\lambda }};b(\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{1+\sqrt{1+12\lambda ^2}}{6\lambda }};c(\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{12\sqrt{1+12\lambda ^2}}{6\lambda }}`$

$`d(\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{2+\sqrt{1+12\lambda ^2}}{6\lambda }};e(\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{1+\sqrt{1+12\lambda ^2}}{6\lambda }};f(\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{1+2\sqrt{1+12\lambda ^2}}{6\lambda }}`$

Base $`S_z=\frac{3}{2}`$: (all eigenfunctions with spin $`S=\frac{3}{2}`$)

$`\{|\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \hfill \\ \hfill & \hfill \end{array},|\begin{array}{cc}\hfill & 0\hfill \\ \hfill & \hfill \end{array},|\begin{array}{cc}\hfill & \hfill \\ \hfill & 0\hfill \end{array},|\begin{array}{cc}\hfill & \hfill \\ 0\hfill & \hfill \end{array}\}`$

Eigenenergies Eigenfunctions    $`\frac{1}{2}J`$ $`(0,1,0,1)`$  $`\frac{1}{2}J`$ $`(1,0,1,0)`$  $`\frac{1}{2}J2t`$ $`(1,1,1,1)`$  $`\frac{1}{2}J+2t`$ $`(1,1,1,1)`$

Coefficients for the SDW state given in (7)

$`z(\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{1+32\lambda ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1+8\lambda ^2}{\sqrt{1+12\lambda ^2}}}}{16+256\lambda ^2}},h(\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{11+128\lambda ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{5+56\lambda ^2}{\sqrt{1+12\lambda ^2}}}}{48(1+16\lambda ^2)}},`$

$`j(\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{1+64\lambda ^2{\displaystyle \frac{5+56\lambda ^2}{\sqrt{1+12\lambda ^2}}}}{48(1+16\lambda ^2)}},g(\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{2+{\displaystyle \frac{2+21\lambda ^2}{\sqrt{1+12\lambda ^2}}}}{6\sqrt{2}\sqrt{1+24\lambda ^2+\sqrt{1+12\lambda ^2}}}}`$

$`k(\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{1+{\displaystyle \frac{1+6\lambda ^2}{\sqrt{1+12\lambda ^2}}}}{12\sqrt{2}\sqrt{1+24\lambda ^2+\sqrt{1+12\lambda ^2}}}}`$


text:
# COSMIC SHEAR WITH THE VLT

## 1 Introduction

The large scale structures of the Universe induce gravitational distortion of the shape of the background galaxies which can be observed on CCD images as a correlated ellipticity distribution of the lensed sources (the cosmic shear). The analysis of cosmic shear permits to extract information on the geometry of space ($`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\lambda `$) as well as on the power spectrum of the (dark) matter density perturbations responsible for the distortion. Therefore, it directly compares observations with cosmological models, without regards on the light distribution.

In contrast to weak lensing analysis of clusters of galaxies, measuring cosmic shear is still a challenge. It has a very small amplitude ($``$ 5 times lower than in clusters) and demands deep images of a large portion of the sky obtained with high precision instruments. Up to now, this task was beyond the reach of the available technology. Although a first detection in a blank sky region was reported two years ago $`^\mathrm{?}`$, it is only recently that four different groups have succeeded in observing cosmic shear $`^\mathrm{?}`$, $`^\mathrm{?}`$, $`^\mathrm{?}`$, $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

The critical issues regarding the reliability of the cosmic shear measurement are the three sources of noise:
\- intrinsic noise
\- systematics
\- cosmic variance
Minimizing the first one is important to get a significant detection; understanding and controlling the second one is important to be sure that the signal is induced by cosmic shear; then minimizing the third one is important to compare the signal with cosmological scenarios.

By using jointly these detections it is possible to rule out some scenarios. However, the cosmic variance is still too large to distinguish among the more common models of the Universe. A significant improvement implies the observation of many independent fields. The Cambridge group $`^\mathrm{?}`$ used nearly statistical independent areas of the sky, but has only 13 fields. The other experiments cover a larger area but sample compact regions with few independent fields. In this case the amplitude of the cosmic variance is estimated by running numerical simulations for each current cosmological models. In any case, the cosmic variance is greater than in the case of observation of completely statistical independent fields. The alternative is to observe many independent fields in order to infer the cosmic variance from the fluctuations of the shear observed from field-to-field. This is the strategy we developed with the VLT/FORS1 survey. In the following, we describe the analysis of cosmic shear in 50 FORS1 fields. This is a preliminary study which does not include an extensive investigation of systematics. Nevertheless, the signal is strong and highly significant, so we are confident in the results shown in this proceeding.

## 2 Observational strategy analysis of VLT/FORS1 data

All the data were obtained in the I band with the FORS1 instrument, a 2048$`\times `$2048 pixel CCD with a $`6.8^{}`$ field of view, mounted at the Cassegrain focus of the VLT-UT1.

In figure 1 we plot the sky distribution of the 50 VLT fields. Their main characteristics are:
\- at least 5 degrees of separation, to be statistically independent;
\- absence of bright stars ($`m_B>14`$), to avoid diffraction spikes and light scattering;
\- intermediate galactic latitudes ($`30^{}b70^{}`$), to have enough stars for the PSF correction;
\- two fields in common with the HST/STIS project and two with the WHT project, to allow for cross checking of the results.

Observations were made between May and September 1999 using the service mode available at ESO. This observing strategy is particularly well suited for cosmic shear surveys, ensuring a seeing always lower than 0.8” and taking advantage from the possibility to spread the targets over a very large part of the sky.

Each field was observed for 36 minutes with 6 individual exposures per field distributed over a circle of $`10^{\prime \prime }`$ of radius. The median seeing for all the fields is $`0.64^{\prime \prime }`$ (see figure 2) and the limiting magnitude is $`I_{AB}24.525`$.

Each image was overscan corrected, bias subtracted and flatfielded with a superflat computed with the exposures of the same night. No fringe correction was necessary. The FORS1 images get through a four port readout, so we treated separately the image subsets coming from the four quadrants of the CCD. Then we normalized the gain of the different subsets to obtain an image with an homogeneous background. Finally, we aligned the six individual exposures to produce the final coadded image. An example is given in figure 3.

At this stage, the images are ready for weak lensing analysis. The incoming light, crossing the atmosphere and getting through the optical system of the telescope, undergoes a smearing and a circularization. If we define the ellipticity of the source as

$$𝐞=(\frac{I_{11}I_{22}}{Tr(I)};\frac{2I_{12}}{Tr(I)})\mathrm{with}I_{ij}=\mathrm{d}^2\theta W(\theta )\theta _i\theta _jf(\theta ),$$
(1)
the observed ellipticity can be expressed by the KSB formalism $`^\mathrm{?}`$, $`^\mathrm{?}`$, $`^\mathrm{?}`$,

$$𝐞^{obs}=𝐞^{source}+P_\gamma \gamma +P^{sm}𝐩$$
(2)
where $`𝐞^{source}`$ is the intrinsic ellipticity of the source, $`P^{sm}`$ is the smear polarizability tensor associated with the effects produced by the anisotropic part of the point spread function (PSF from now on) and $`𝐩`$ is connected to the anisotropic kernel $`g(\theta )`$ of the PSF through the two equations:

$$𝐩=(q_{11}q_{22};2q_{12});q_{lm}=\mathrm{d}^2\theta \theta _l\theta _mg(\theta ).$$
(3)
The vector $`𝐩`$ can be computed from the stellar ellipticity $`𝐞^{}`$

$$p_\alpha =\frac{e_\alpha ^{}}{P_{\alpha \alpha }^{sm}}.$$
(4)
The quantity $`P_\gamma `$ is the preseeing shear polarizability tensor, that takes into account both the effect of the gravitational shear and the circularization effect of the isotropic part of the PSF. It is given by the equation

$$P^\gamma =P^{sh}\frac{P_{}^{sh}}{P_{}^{sm}}P^{sm}$$
(5)
where $`P^{sh}`$ is the shear polarizability tensor and the subscript “$``$” refers to the quantity computed for stars.

Assuming that there is no preferred direction for the intrinsic ellipticity of the sources, the cosmic shear at a given angular scale is

$$\gamma =P_\gamma ^1𝐞^{obs}P^{sm}𝐩$$
(6)
where the average is computed over a given angular scale.

Two main tasks can be identified in shear computation:
\- separation between stars and galaxies and selection of stars to compute the PSF correction for the galaxies;
\- selection of galaxies for which the ellipticity can be computed with a small error.

Practically, this is translated in the following steps (for details, see $`^\mathrm{?}`$).
a) Masking of images: we remove all the boundaries of the four quadrants of the CCD. this includes the external boundaries and the central cross delineating the four quadrants. We remove also all sources too close to bright sources that can deform them, satellite traces and in general all those sources whose shape is difficult to compute correctly. About 12% of objects are removed in this way.
b) Stars selection: as usual, we use a radius vs magnitude plot to select not saturated stars. A low cut in the magnitude or an high cut in the radius would result in selecting small galaxies instead of stars therefore producing lower quality PSF corrections.
c) Fit of the stellar polarizability tensors: using stars, we compute $`p_\alpha =\frac{e_\alpha ^{}}{P_{\alpha \alpha }^{sm}}`$ and $`\frac{P_{}^{sh}}{P_{}^{sm}}`$ in all the image, fitting with a third order polynomial.
d) $`P^\gamma `$ computation: using the stellar fits, we compute Eq. 5 for all the sources. $`P^\gamma `$ is a very noisy matrix with huge fluctuations. For a given source, we then compute $`P^\gamma `$ making an average among its values for the 30 nearest neighbors (see van Waerbeke et al., 2000).
e) Source selection: we select sources with stellar class (given by SExtractor) $`<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.9}`$, with radius $`>`$ stellar radius and with separation $`>`$ 10 pixels.

In figure 4 we plot the star ellipticities for all VLT fields before and after the PSF correction. Five fields had a poor PSF correction and were eliminated.

At the end we have 45 fields with in average 60 stars/field (a minimum of 20 and a maximum of 120); we have roughly 58700 sources for 1900 $`\mathrm{arcmin}^2`$ that is $`31\mathrm{sources}/\mathrm{arcmin}^2`$ and 1300 sources/field.

## 3 Results and conclusion

For each final corrected image, we computed the variance of the shear, $`\gamma ^2`$, at different angular scales, where the angular scale is given by the angular dimension of the top-hat window function. Then we made an average of $`\gamma ^2`$ over the 45 fields.

In this way we can associate an error to the value of $`\gamma ^2`$ at a given scale. It is important to stress that with 45 fields this also includes the cosmic variance.

In figure 5 we plot our results together with those of the other cosmic shear measurement projects. Note the remarkable agreement between the VLT and the CFHT results, although they were obtained with different observational strategies. This is the best guarantee that cosmic shear measurement is not associated with any local systematic effect.

Different theoretical models are also plotted in the figure. This plot rules out COBE-normalized standard CDM, which show the important potential of cosmic shear for cosmology. However, the errors are still too large to give precise predictions on the value of cosmological parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and the shape of the power spectrum of primordial density fluctuations. Only a larger amount of data together with a complete control of the systematics will allow to reach this important goal.

## Acknowledgments

We thank the ESO service observing team at the VLT for performing the observations. We thank V. Charmandaris (Dr IRAF), D. Bacon and A. Refregier for helpful discussions. This work was supported by the TMR Network “Gravitational Lensing: New Constraints on Cosmology and the Distribution of Dark Matter” of the EC under contract No. ERBFMRX-CT97-0172.

## References


text:
# References

TU/00/596

KEK-TH-704

Quantum tunneling in thermal medium

Sh. Matsumoto1 and M. Yoshimura2

1 Theory Group, KEK
Oho 1-1 Tsukuba Ibaraki 305-0801 Japan

2 Department of Physics, Tohoku University
Sendai 980-8578 Japan

ABSTRACT

Time evolution of tunneling phenomena in medium is studied using a standard model of environment interaction. A semiclassical formula valid at low, but finite temperatures is derived in the form of integral transform for the reduced Wigner function, and the tunneling probability in thermal medium is calculated for a general tunneling potential of one dimensional system. Effect of dissipation, its time evolution in particular, depends on the behavior of the potential far beyond the barrier.

Tunneling phenomena are genuinely a quantum effect. When they occur in some surrounding medium, the important question arises as to whether the tunneling rate is enhanced or suppressed by the environment effect. There are already many works on this subject , and most past works deal with a system in equilibrium as a whole. The Euclidean technique such as the bounce solution  is often used in this context , . Our approach here is different, and we attempt to clarify dynamics of time evolution starting from an arbitrary initial state of the tunneling system, which can be either a pure or a mixed state. Moreover we find it more illuminating to use a real-time formalism instead of the Euclidean method much employed in the literature .

Although one can think of many applications of our general framework here, application to cosmology is our prime target . The cosmological environment is in many aspects the simplest since the environment is almost spatially homogeneous and for many purposes its state can be characterized by a single temperature parameter. Furthermore cosmic evolution gives rise to decrease of the temperature, dropping some degree of freedom out of equilibrium with the rest. This gives a natural setting for separation of a subsystem from the environment, which is at the heart of our approach.

The standard model , of environment and its interaction with a one dimensional system which we describe by a potential $`V(q)`$ introduces an infinitely many, continuous harmonic oscillators of environment and a bilinear interaction, $`q𝑑\omega c(\omega )Q(\omega ).`$ Here $`Q(\omega )`$ is the environment oscillator coordinate of frequency $`\omega `$ and $`c(\omega )`$ gives a coupling strength of the system-environment interaction. Although the form of interaction seems rather limited, it is generally believed that details of the environment interaction with the system should not be important and this form should suffice. With the total system specified, dynamics is given by the quantum equation of motion,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2q}{dt^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{dV}{dq}}={\displaystyle _{\omega _c}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega c(\omega )Q(\omega ),{\displaystyle \frac{d^2Q(\omega )}{dt^2}}+\omega ^2Q(\omega )=c(\omega )q.`$ (1)
Quantum Langevin equation is derived  by eliminating the environment variable $`Q(\omega ,t)`$;

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2q}{dt^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{dV}{dq}}+2{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑s\alpha _I(ts)q(s)=F_Q(t),`$ (2)
where $`F_Q(t)`$ has an explicit, linear dependence on the initial values, $`Q_i(\omega ),P_i(\omega )=\dot{Q}_i(\omega )`$. In a thermal bath of environment temperature $`T=1/\beta `$ the random force from the environment is characterized by the correlation function,

$`\{F_Q(\tau ),F_Q(s)\}_+_{\mathrm{env}}={\displaystyle _{\omega _c}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega r(\omega )\mathrm{cos}\omega (\tau s)\mathrm{coth}({\displaystyle \frac{\beta \omega }{2}}),`$ (3)
with $`r(\omega )=c^2(\omega )/(2\omega )`$. The kernel function $`\alpha _I`$ in eq.(2) is related to the real-time thermal Green’s function and is given by $`\alpha _I(t)=_{\omega _c}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega r(\omega )\mathrm{sin}(\omega t).`$

An often used simplification is the local, Ohmic approximation taking $`r(\omega )=\eta \omega /\pi `$ with $`\omega _c=0`$, which amounts to $`\alpha _I(\tau )=\delta \omega ^2\delta (\tau )+\eta \delta ^{}(\tau ).`$ This gives $`\delta \omega ^2q+\eta \dot{q}`$ in the Langevin equation (2). The parameter $`\delta \omega ^2`$ is interpreted as a potential renormalization effect or the mass renormalization in the field theory analogy, while $`\eta `$ is the Ohmic friction coefficient. This approximation breaks down at early times , but it is useful in many other cases.

Our discussion starts from the master equation for this system, which is written for convenience in terms of the Wigner function $`f_W(q,p,Q(\omega ),P(\omega ))`$, a Fourier transformation of the density matrix $`\rho (q,q^{},Q(\omega ),Q^{}(\omega ))`$ with respect to the relative coordinate, $`qq^{},Q(\omega )Q^{}(\omega )`$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{f_W}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`p{\displaystyle \frac{f_W}{q}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\omega \left(P(\omega )\frac{f_W}{Q(\omega )}+c(\omega )(q\frac{}{P(\omega )}+Q(\omega )\frac{}{p})f_W\right)}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}}\left\{V\left(q+{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{p}}\right)V\left(q{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{p}}\right)\right\}f_W.`$ (4)
The crucial observation for subsequent development is how the Planck constant $`\mathrm{}`$ enters in the master equation (4). In one dimensional quantum mechanics the semiclassical approximation is excellent when the potential barrier is large, and we assume that this is also true in the presence of the system-environment interaction. In the semiclassical $`\mathrm{}0`$ limit we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}}\left\{V\left(q+{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{p}}\right)V\left(q{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{p}}\right)\right\}f_W{\displaystyle \frac{dV}{dq}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_W}{p}}.`$ (5)
The resulting equation, being identical to the classical Liouville equation, has an obvious solution;

$`f_W(q,p,Q,P)={\displaystyle 𝑑q_i𝑑p_i𝑑Q_i𝑑P_if_W^{(i)}(q_i,p_i,Q_i,P_i)}`$
$`\delta \left(qq_{\mathrm{cl}}\right)\delta \left(pp_{\mathrm{cl}}\right)\delta \left(QQ_{\mathrm{cl}}\right)\delta \left(PP_{\mathrm{cl}}\right),`$ (6)
where $`q_{\mathrm{cl}}(q_i,p_i,Q_i,P_i;t)`$ etc. are the solution of (1), taken as the classical equation.

We consider the circumstance under which the tunneling system is initially in a state uncorrelated to the rest of environment. Thus we take an uncorrelated initial state of the form $`\rho ^{(i)}=\rho _q^{(i)}\rho _Q^{(i)},`$ to get the reduced Wigner function after the trivial $`Q(\omega ),P(\omega )`$ integration,

$`f_W^{(R)}(q,p;t)={\displaystyle 𝑑q_i𝑑p_if_{W,q}^{(i)}(q_i,p_i)K(q,p,q_i,p_i;t)},`$
$`K(q,p,q_i,p_i;t)={\displaystyle 𝑑Q_i𝑑P_if_{W,Q}^{(i)}(Q_i,P_i)\delta \left(qq_{\mathrm{cl}}\right)\delta \left(pp_{\mathrm{cl}}\right)}.`$ (7)
The problem of great interest is how further one can simplify the kernel function $`K`$ here.

In many situations one is interested in the tunneling probability when the environment temperature is low enough. At low temperatures of $`T`$ a typical frequency or curvature scale $`\omega _s`$ of the potential $`V`$, one has $`\omega _s\sqrt{\overline{Q_i^2(\omega )}},\sqrt{\overline{P_i^2(\omega )}}=O[\sqrt{T}]\sqrt{\omega _s}.`$ Expansion in terms of $`Q_i(\omega ),P_i(\omega )`$ is then justified. Thus, we use

$`\delta \left(qq_{\mathrm{cl}}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda _q}{2\pi }\mathrm{exp}\left[i\lambda _q\left(qq_{\mathrm{cl}}\right)\right]}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda _q}{2\pi }\mathrm{exp}\left[i\lambda _q\left(qq_{\mathrm{cl}}^{(0)}𝑑\omega \left\{Q_i(\omega )q_{\mathrm{cl}}^{(Q)}(\omega )+P_i(\omega )q_{\mathrm{cl}}^{(P)}(\omega )\right\}\right)\right]},`$ (8)
valid to the first order of $`Q_i(\omega ),P_i(\omega )`$. A similar expansion for $`\delta \left(pp_{\mathrm{cl}}\right)`$ using $`p_{\mathrm{cl}}^{(0)},p_{\mathrm{cl}}^{(Q)}(\omega ),p_{\mathrm{cl}}^{(P)}(\omega ),`$ also holds.

Gaussian integral for the variables $`Q_i(\omega ),P_i(\omega ),\lambda _q,\lambda _p`$ can be done explicitly with eq.(8), when one takes the thermal density matrix for the initial environment, $`\rho _Q^{(i)}`$. The result of this Gaussian integral leads to an integral transform of the Wigner function, $`f_W^{(i)}f_W^{(R)}`$, using the kernel function of

$`K(q,p,q_i,p_i;t)={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{det}𝒥}}{2\pi }}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(qq_{\mathrm{cl}}^{(0)},pp_{\mathrm{cl}}^{(0)})𝒥\left(\begin{array}{c}qq_{\mathrm{cl}}^{(0)}\\ pp_{\mathrm{cl}}^{(0)}\end{array}\right)\right],`$ (11)
where the matrix elements of $`𝒥^1=I_{ij}`$ are given by

$`I_{11}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\omega _c}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega \mathrm{coth}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta \omega }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega }}|z(\omega ,t)|^2,`$ (12)
$`I_{22}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\omega _c}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega \mathrm{coth}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta \omega }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega }}|\dot{z}(\omega ,t)|^2,`$ (13)
$`I_{12}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\omega _c}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega \mathrm{coth}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta \omega }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega }}\mathrm{}\left(z(\omega ,t)\dot{z}^{}(\omega ,t)\right),`$ (14)
where $`z(\omega ,t)=q_{\mathrm{cl}}^{(Q)}(\omega ,t)+i\omega q_{\mathrm{cl}}^{(P)}(\omega ,t),`$ and $`\dot{z}(\omega ,t)=p_{\mathrm{cl}}^{(Q)}(\omega ,t)+i\omega p_{\mathrm{cl}}^{(P)}(\omega ,t).`$

Quantities that appear here ought to be determined by solving differential equations with a given initial condition; the homogeneous Langevin equation and its linearized equation of the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2q_{\mathrm{cl}}^{(0)}}{dt^2}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{dV}{dx}}\right)_{q_{\mathrm{cl}}^{(0)}}+2{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑s\alpha _I(ts)q_{\mathrm{cl}}^{(0)}(s)=0,`$ (15)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2z(\omega ,t)}{dt^2}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{d^2V}{dx^2}}\right)_{q_{\mathrm{cl}}^{(0)}}z(\omega ,t)+2{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑s\alpha _I(ts)z(\omega ,s)=c(\omega )e^{i\omega t}.`$ (16)
The same linear equation as for $`z(\omega ,t)`$ holds for $`\dot{z}(\omega ,t).`$ The initial condition is
$`q_{\mathrm{cl}}^{(0)}(t=0)=q_i,p_{\mathrm{cl}}^{(0)}(t=0)=p_i,z(\omega ,t=0)=0,\dot{z}(\omega ,t=0)=0.`$ Once the reduced Wigner function is known, one can compute any physical quantity by a phase space integration.

The physical picture underlying the formula for integral transform should be evident; the probability at a phase space point $`(q,p)`$ is dominated by the semiclassical trajectory (environment effect of dissipation being included for its determination) reaching $`(q,p)`$ from an initial point $`(q_i,p_i)`$ whose contribution is weighed by the quantum mechanical probability $`f_W^{(i)}`$ initially given. The broadning of the trajectory due to the environment interaction is given by the width factor $`\sqrt{I_{ij}}`$.

To proceed further, we distinguish two cases of the potential type, depending on the value of $`V(\mathrm{})`$ relative to the local minimum value $`V_m`$ in the potential well. The kind of potential we have in mind is depicted in Fig.1. When $`V(\mathrm{})<V_m`$ (Fig.1a), the classical motion is usually monotonic ending at $`x=\mathrm{}`$, while for $`V(\mathrm{})>V_m`$ (Fig.1b) the motion is a damped oscillation towards $`x_0`$ at the true minimum, unless the friction is large. If the friction is larger than a critical value of $`2\omega _0`$ with $`\omega _0`$ given by the curvature of the potential at the global minimum, there occurs the overdamping such that $`q_{\mathrm{cl}}^{(0)}x_0`$ monotonically. A typical interesting case for $`V(\mathrm{})>V_m`$ is the asymmetric double well as may occur in the first order electroweak phase transition .

In the rest of this paper, we consider a few problems to illustrate consequences of our general formula of the integral transform. One problem is the outgoing flux to the overbarrier region of the type of potential of Fig.1a, assuming an initial energy eigenstate under the whole potential $`V`$. The other problem is the tunneling probability for the type of potential of Fig.1b. We take here an initial thermal state of the same temperature as the environment, given by the density matrix $`_ne^{\beta E_n}|nn|`$ with $`|n`$ the exact energy eigenstate under $`V`$. This choice is made in order to mimic the cosmological first order phase transition in which the local minimum in the left was the true minimum above a critical temperature. We insist on the energy eigenstate because it is the most stable state, being stationary when the environment interaction is switched off. In this sense the choice of the energy eigenstate and its mixture is useful in many applications.

We first discuss the tunneling probability for the case of $`V(\mathrm{})<V_m`$. Suppose that we are primarily interested in the tunneling probability from a state localized in the left well into the right region far beyond the barrier. For discussion from further on we assume $`\omega _{}V_h`$, where $`\omega _{}`$ is the frequency defined at the potential bottom in the well and $`V_h`$ the barrier height seen from the bottom. Since higher energy states contribute roughly with the weight factor, $`e^{2H(q_i,p_i)/\omega _{}},`$ where $`H(q_i,p_i)`$ is the hamiltonian of the hypothetical oscillator of frequency $`\omega _{}`$ without the barrier in the right, the high momentum component above the barrier is suppressed by $`e^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}V_h/\omega _{}}`$. We assume that this factor is much smaller than a typical barrier penetration factor $`|T(E)|^2`$ in the overbarrier region, usually given by the WKB formula, $`\mathrm{exp}[2𝑑x|p(x)|].`$ In this way we may restrict the phase space region in the integral transform to the region $`D`$ defined by $`|V_0|<\frac{1}{2}p_i^2+\frac{1}{2}\omega _0^2(q_ix_0)^2<V_h+|V_0|,`$ with $`V_0`$ the minimum potential value at $`x_0`$.

The flux at $`x`$ is calculated from an integral of the form, $`𝑑ppf_W^{(R)}(x,p;t),`$ giving

$`I(x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _D}𝑑q_i𝑑p_if_W^{(i)}(q_i,p_i){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi I_{11}}}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(xq_{\mathrm{cl}}^{(0)})^2}{2I_{11}}}\right]`$ (17)
$`\left(p_{\mathrm{cl}}^{(0)}+{\displaystyle \frac{I_{12}}{I_{11}}}(xq_{\mathrm{cl}}^{(0)})\right).`$
The initial Wigner function $`f_W^{(i)}(q_i,p_i)`$ is a Fourier transform of $`\psi ^{}(q_i\frac{\xi }{2})\psi (q_i+\frac{\xi }{2})`$ with respect to $`\xi `$, where $`\psi `$ is the initial wave function. The phase of the wave function plays an important role for the region, $`q_i>x_{}`$ where $`x_{}`$ is a turning point in the overbarrier region, and one may use the stationary phase approximation for the $`\xi `$ and $`p_i`$ integration. We find a stationary point at $`\xi =0,p_i=I(q_i),I(x)=\frac{i}{2}(\psi ^{}(x)\psi ^{}(x)\psi ^{}{}_{}{}^{}(x)\psi (x))/|\psi (x)|^2.`$ The quantity $`I(x)`$ is the usual quantum mechanical flux associated with the initial quantum state.

In the region of $`xx_{}`$ there is always a classical trajectory that reaches the point $`x`$ of the Gaussian peak from an initial $`q_i`$ in the range $`q_i>x_{}`$, and the entire region within the Gaussian width $`\sqrt{I_{11}}`$ is fully covered by the integral. The factor outside the Gaussian exponent is well approximated by its peak value in the weak coupling case. Thus, one obtains $`I(x,t)|\psi (x_c)|^2\left(\dot{x}_c\right),`$ where one determines $`x_c(x,t)`$ from $`q_{\mathrm{cl}}^{(0)}(x_c,I(x_c),0,0;t)=x.`$ Using the WKB wave function for the energy eigenstate at $`q_i>x_{}`$, $`\psi (q_i)=T(E)\mathrm{exp}\left[i_x_{}^{q_i}p(x)\right]/\sqrt{p(q_i)},p(x)=\sqrt{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}(EV(x))},`$ one has a factorized form of the flux;

$`I(x,t)|T(E)|^2f(x,t;E),f={\displaystyle \frac{p_{\mathrm{cl}}^{(0)}(x_c,t)}{p(x_c)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dq_{\mathrm{cl}}^{(0)}(x_c,t)}{dx_c}}\right)^1.`$ (18)
We note that the potential renormalization effect should be included for $`|T(E)|^2`$, as emphasized in .

This formula for the flux reproduces our previous result for a specific potential of the inverted harmonic oscillator , $`V(x)=\frac{1}{2}\omega _R^2x^2.`$ In this case the Gaussian integral gives the exact result, relying neither on the low temperature nor on the stationary phase approximation. The present approach actually improves our previous result;

$`f={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{..}{g}x_c+\dot{g}I(x_c)}{\dot{g}I(x_c)+g\omega _B^2x_c}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{..}{g}+\omega _B\dot{g}}{\omega _B(\dot{g}+\omega _Bg)}},`$ (19)
where $`\omega _B\omega _R\eta /2`$ is a diagonalized frequency, and the initial flux
$`I(x_c)=\sqrt{2(EV(x_c))}`$ in the WKB approximation. The function $`g(t)`$ is the homogeneous solution of the Langevin equation given in an explicit form in . The limiting formula is valid in the infinite $`x`$ limit as derived in . Both at early and late times the factor $`f1`$, deviating from unity only for the time range of order $`1/\omega _B`$.

For discussion of a more general case of finite $`V(\mathrm{})<V_m`$ we use the local, Ohmic approximation, which becomes excellent at late times. A potential that decreases fast at infinity as $`x\mathrm{}`$ is assumed; $`\frac{dV}{dx}0.`$ The acceleration term can then be neglected if $`|\frac{d^2V}{dq_{\mathrm{cl}}^2}|\eta ^2`$. This is a slow rolling approximation, and it always holds for $`x`$ large enough. The classical equation is then solved as $`\eta _{x_c}^x𝑑z(\frac{dV}{dz})^1=t,`$ which gives the factor $`f(\frac{dV}{dx_c})/(\eta p(\mathrm{})).`$ Thus, the tunneling probability decreases with time along with the decreasing slope of the potential. Since the tunneling may not be terminated within a limited finite time, this result poses a curious question; there is a situation in the early universe in which the tunneling is never ended if the friction is strong.

We next turn to the case of $`V(\mathrm{})>V_m`$, and consider the thermal initial state. At low temperatures of $`TV_h`$ the dominant contribution comes from the energy range $`0<E<V_h`$. Contribution from the subbarrier region in $`q_i`$ integration is small and may be ignored. We add two contributions from the left well and from the overbarrier region. In the left well region the Wigner function is given by $`f_W^{(i)}(q_i,p_i)\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{tanh}(\beta \omega _{}/2)(\omega _{}q_i^2+p_i^2/\omega _{})].`$ It is more appropriate here to compute the transition probability by $`𝑑pf_W^{(R)}(x,p;t),`$ without the flux $`p`$ factor. The final position $`x`$ is taken around $`x_0`$ of width $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$. If one makes a rough approximation for both the left well and the overbarrier region by harmonic oscillators, the relevant classical motion is given by a linear function of initial values, $`q_i,p_i`$, reducing the phase space integral to a restricted Gaussian type.

The averaged tunneling probability over $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ (Gaussian weight assumed) is
$`\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi A}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{x_0^2}{A}\right)`$ from the left well region, with $`A=(\frac{g_1^2}{\omega _{}}+\omega _{}g_2^2)\mathrm{coth}(\frac{\beta \omega _{}}{2})+2(\mathrm{\Delta }x^2+I_{11}),`$ where $`g_i(t)`$’s are two independent solutions to the linearized equation in the left well. The time averaged value over $`\mathrm{\Delta }t1/\omega _{}`$ gives $`\overline{g_1^2}\frac{1}{2}e^{\eta t}`$, and $`\overline{g_2^2}e^{\eta t}/(2\omega _{}^2)`$, in the weak coupling. In the late time limit $`I_{11}\mathrm{coth}(\beta \omega _{}/2)/(2\omega _{}),`$ and the exponent factor becomes of order, $`\mathrm{exp}[\omega _{}x_0^2/(1+2\omega _{}\mathrm{\Delta }x^2)]`$ at $`T\omega _{}`$, while at $`T\omega _{}`$ it is $`\mathrm{exp}[\omega _{}^2x_0^2/(2T+2\omega _{}^2\mathrm{\Delta }x^2)].`$

On the other hand, one may use the WKB form of the wave function in the overbarrier region, with the transmission coefficient $`|T(E)|^2=e^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi (V_hE)/\omega _B},`$ using the inverted harmonic oscillator of the curvature $`\omega _B`$ for the subbarrier region. The density matrix $`\rho _q^{(i)}(q,q^{})`$ is then ($`T\omega _{}`$ is assumed)

$`\beta \omega _{}e^{2\pi V_h/\omega _B}{\displaystyle _0^{V_h}}𝑑E\mathrm{exp}\left[(\beta {\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\omega _B}})E\right]\phi (q;E)\phi ^{}(q^{};E),`$ (20)
where $`\phi (q;E)\mathrm{cos}(_x_{}^q𝑑xp(x;E)\frac{\pi }{4})/\sqrt{p(q;E)}.`$ The contribution from the overbarrier region is then roughly
$`\beta \omega _{}(e^{2\pi V_h/\omega _B}e^{\beta V_h})/((\beta 2\pi /\omega _B)(\omega _0\sqrt{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi \mathrm{\Delta }x^2+\pi \mathrm{coth}(\beta \omega _0/2)/\omega _0})).`$ In the case of overdamping this asymptotic value is approached from below by a slowly varying term $`e^{2\omega _0^2t/\eta }.`$ Since $`\omega _{}x_0^2V_h`$ and $`\omega _{}=O[\omega _B]`$, these contributions from the overbarrier region are generally larger than those from the left well region. One should compare this with the zero temperature result, $`\omega _{}e^{2\pi V_h/\omega _B}/(\omega _0\sqrt{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi \mathrm{\Delta }x^2+\pi /\omega _0})`$ in order to assess the effect of dissipative medium.

In summary we gave a real-time formulation of tunneling dynamics in thermal medium within the semiclassical framework.

Acknowledgment

An important part of this work was completed during our stay at DESY, and both of us acknowledge the theory group of DESY, especially W. Buchmuller for the warm hospitality. The work of Sh. Matsumoto is partially supported by the Japan Society of the Promotion of Science.

Figure caption

Fig.1

Two types of tunneling potential.


text:
# Rotations and 𝑒, 𝜈 Propagators, Part III

## 1 Introduction

We begin with rotations and vectors in four dimensional Euclidean space $`E^4.`$ With a two dimensional representation we should be able to represent vectors with two component quantities, the 2-vectors. But we can’t. In four dimensional Euclidean space the two dimensional representation is unfaithful, one matrix represents two different rotations. We need two 2-vectors to describe the motion of one vector in $`E^4.`$ The geometry is discussed in Sec. 2 more fully but basically one 2-vector moves under rotations in one plane while the second 2-vector moves with rotations in a second plane. This may be why electron wave functions, which to begin with here are acted on only by rotations, have four components.

In Sec. 3 we consider bases whose upper 2-vectors are eigenvectors of rotations in one plane and the lower 2-vectors are eigenvectors in a second plane. In Sec. 2 the two planes are complementary, i.e. the two span all four dimensions, while in Sec. 3 we consider any two planes in the four dimensional Euclidean space. Eigenvectors of one plane are related to the eigenvectors of the second plane by a U(1)$`\times `$SU(2) transformation, in general.

In Sec. 4 the four projection operators for the general eigenvector basis are molded to yield two spacetime projection operators by the process developed in Parts I and II,  and . The requirements of spacetime symmetry determine the U(1)$`\times `$SU(2) transformation relating the two rotation planes of the upper and lower 2-vectors. We find that only when the two planes for the basis span all four dimensions does the basis yield spacetime symmetric operators. These bases are just the ones considered in Parts I and II that turned out electron and neutrino propagators. Thus the process of constraining rotation-based quantities to make spacetime symmetric objects with a two dimensional representation can give only electron or neutrino propagators. Furthermore, from our viewpoint, having spacetime symmetry is equivalent to choosing complementary planes for rotating the upper and lower 2-vectors in the wave function.

## 2 The Implied Geometry of Internal Spin Space

Why pairs of 2-vectors? Each electron or neutrino wave function has four components arranged in a pair of 2-vectors ( a chiral representation). Only the free neutrino is discussed in Part II, so agreement with the standard electroweak model would require that only two of the four components participate in interactions.

The explanation depends on the fact that the $`2\times 2`$ matrix representations of rotations are faithful in three dimensional Euclidean space $`E^3`$ but unfaithful in $`E^4.`$ For each of the two inequivalent representations of rotations in $`E^3,`$ there is a one-to-one correspondence between matrices and rotations but in $`E^4`$ the correspondence is one-to-two. As we now show, to properly represent a vector quantity $`\chi `$ in $`E^4,`$ one needs two 2-vectors so that the effects on $`\chi `$ of the two rotations can be distinguished. See Fig. 1 and 2.

$`E^3.`$ A rotation $`r`$ in $`E^3`$ can be represented by a $`2\times 2`$ matrix $`R,`$ I(1), in either of two inequivalent matrix representations, also known as inequivalent ‘spinor’ representations. Each representation is faithful, there is exactly one matrix $`R`$ for each rotation $`r.`$ Let $`x`$ be a 2-vector representing some vector quantity $`\chi .`$ Then applying the rotation $`r`$ with arbitrary rotation angles $`\theta `$ gives the evolution of the quantity, i.e. $`r\chi .`$ Matrix multiplication, $`Rx`$, gives the 2-vector that corresponds to $`r\chi .`$ Hence the evolution of the vector $`\chi `$ is well represented by one 2-vector $`x.`$

$`E^4.`$ In four dimensional Euclidean space $`E^4`$ things are different, see Fig. 1. Given any 2-dimensional plane, plane 1, that contains the origin, there is a second plane, plane 2, that intersects 1 only at the origin. A rotation $`r_1`$ about the origin in plane 1 is independent of any rotation $`r_2`$ about the origin in plane 2, hence order is unimportant and $`r_1r_2`$ $`r_2r_1`$ = 0. This implies that any matrix $`R_1`$ that represents $`r_1`$ must commute with the matrix $`R_2`$ that represents $`r_2.`$ For $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$ this in turn means the unit 3-vectors $`n^k`$ in $`R`$ = $`\mathrm{exp}(in^k\sigma ^k\theta /2)`$ are equal, $`n_1^k`$ = $`n_2^k.`$ Thus $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$ are the same matrix except with possibly different rotation angles $`\theta _1`$ and $`\theta _2.`$ This one-matrix-for-two-rotations association makes the $`2\times 2`$ matrix representation ‘unfaithful’ in $`E^4.`$

When a 2-vector $`x`$ evolves by multiplying it by a rotation matrix $`R`$ with rotation angle $`\theta ,`$ all we know is that a rotation $`r_1`$ through an angle $`\theta _1`$ and an independent rotation $`r_2`$ through an angle $`\theta _2`$ has taken place, where

$$\theta =\theta _1+\theta _2$$
(1)
But the evolution of a vector quantity $`\chi `$ will in general depend on whether it is transformed via $`r_1`$ or $`r_2,`$ see Fig. 2. Hence to keep track of the evolution of $`\chi `$ we need two 2-vectors, one for its evolution with rotations in plane 1, and one 2-vector for rotations in plane 2.

The spin 1/2 wave functions $`\psi `$ are just combinations of the two 2-vectors that represent vectors like $`\chi `$ in four dimensional Euclidean space $`E^4.`$ Rotation of the upper 2-vector in $`\psi `$ can take place in plane 1, while the rotations of the lower 2-vector take place in plane 2.

We can now answer the question posed at the start of the section. Each $`\psi `$ must have four components because the $`2\times 2`$ matrix representations of rotations in $`E^4`$ are unfaithful and it takes two 2-vectors to represent one vector.

## 3 An Eigenvector Basis with Independent Planes

Up to this point in Parts I and II, the basis pairs have contained matched upper and lower 2-vectors, ‘matched’ because they are eigenvectors $`u^+`$ or $`u^{}`$ of the same rotation matrix $`R,`$ I(1) and I(3). We use eigenvectors because they give a phase factor when acted on by the rotation matrix and we use the phase factors in the definition of time and space. But, as just discussed, the rotation plane may not be the same for the upper and lower 2-vectors even when the same rotation matrix $`R`$ is applied to the upper and lower 2-vectors. What happens when the rotation matrices, and therefore the rotation planes, for the upper and lower 2-vectors are allowed to differ?

Eigenvector Pairs. First we consider two general pairs. Let $`\alpha ,`$ $`\beta ,`$ $`a,`$ and $`b`$ be four 2-vectors arranged in two pairs,

$$u_a^\alpha =\left(\begin{array}{c}e^{w_1/2}\alpha \\ e^{w_2/2}a\end{array}\right)u_b^\beta =\left(\begin{array}{c}e^{w_3/2}\beta \\ e^{w_4/2}b\end{array}\right),$$
(2)
where we absorb phase factors in the 2-vectors thereby making the $`w`$s real and we absorb the normalization factors in the $`w`$s so that the 2-vectors are normalized to unity,

$$\alpha ^{}\alpha =1\beta ^{}\beta =1a^{}a=1b^{}b=1.$$
(3)
The two pairs (2) are orthogonal when they are ‘eigenvector pairs,’ i.e. $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are eigenvectors of a rotation matrix $`R`$ and $`a`$ and $`b`$ are eigenvectors of a possibly different rotation matrix $`R_a.`$ To show this, note that since eigenvectors are orthogonal, I(7), we have

$$\alpha ^{}\beta =0a^{}b=0$$
(4)
and (2) then implies that $`u_a^\alpha ,`$ and $`u_b^\beta `$ are orthogonal,

$$u_{a}^{\alpha }{}_{}{}^{}u_b^\beta =0.$$
(5)
The inverse is not true. If the pairs (2) are orthogonal as in (5) then it does not follow that $`\{\alpha ,\beta \}`$ and $`\{a,b\}`$ are sets of eigenvectors and orthogonal.

Hence we can associate planes with the upper and lower 2-vectors of eigenvector pairs. $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are eigenvectors for rotations in one plane and $`a`$ and $`b`$ are eigenvectors for rotations in a second plane. We may just as well take $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ be the eigenvectors $`u^+`$ and $`u^{}`$ for the rotation matrix $`R`$ in I(1) and I(3). We have

$$\alpha =u^+\beta =u^{}.$$
(6)
U(1)$`\times `$SU(2) Theorem. One orthonormal set of eigenvectors is related to a second orthonormal set of eigenvectors by the action of a rotation matrix like $`R`$, I(1), and a phase factor, i.e. a U(1)$`\times `$SU(2) transformation. This is a well known assertion which is obtained in Appendix A for completeness. By (42) we get

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}a\\ b\end{array}\right)=T\left(\begin{array}{c}u^+\\ u^{}\end{array}\right)=e^{i\chi }[\tau ^4\mathrm{cos}(\kappa /2)+iN^k\tau ^k\mathrm{sin}(\kappa /2)]\left(\begin{array}{c}u^+\\ u^{}\end{array}\right)=e^{i\chi }e^{iN^k\tau ^k\kappa /2}\left(\begin{array}{c}u^+\\ u^{}\end{array}\right),$$
(7)
where $`T`$ is a phase factor times a rotation matrix, $`\chi `$ and $`\kappa `$ are real, $`N^k`$ is a unit 3-vector and the $`2\times 2`$ matrices $`\tau `$ are the same as the $`\sigma `$ matrices in I(2). (We write a spin matrix as a $`\tau `$ when it is applied to a pair of 2-vectors and we write the spin matrix as a $`\sigma `$ when it is applied to the two components of one 2-vector.)

The group U(1)$`\times `$SU(2) is the familiar gauge group for the electroweak interaction. It is important that a gauge group realize some special property of the system described. We have just found that U(1)$`\times `$SU(2) relates the eigenvectors of rotations in the upper 2-vector plane with those of the lower 2-vector plane. Put another way, the two pairs (2) are orthogonal for any values of $`\chi ,`$ $`N^k,`$ and $`\kappa `$ in $`T,`$ (7).

Basis. A basis contains four pairs, so we take two sets of eigenvector pairs like (2). We have

$$u_a^+=\left(\begin{array}{c}e^{d_1/2}u^+\\ e^{d_2/2}a\end{array}\right)u_b^{}=\left(\begin{array}{c}e^{d_3/2}u^{}\\ e^{d_4/2}b\end{array}\right)v_a^+=\left(\begin{array}{c}e^{i\alpha _1}e^{d_5/2}u^+\\ e^{i\alpha _2}e^{d_6/2}a\end{array}\right)v_b^{}=\left(\begin{array}{c}e^{i\alpha _3}e^{d_7/2}u^{}\\ e^{i\alpha _4}e^{d_8/2}b\end{array}\right),$$
(8)
where $`\{u^+,u^{}\}`$ and $`\{a,b\}`$ are orthonormal sets of eigenvectors just as before and the phases $`\alpha _i`$ are arbitrary.

We assume the basis pairs are orthogonal. From $`u_{a}^{+}{}_{}{}^{}v_a^+`$ = $`u_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{}v_b^{}`$ = 0, we get

$$\alpha _1\alpha _2=\pi +2n\pi \alpha _3\alpha _4=\pi +2m\pi d_1d_2=(d_5d_6)d_3d_4=(d_7d_8),$$
(9)
where $`n`$ and $`m`$ are integers. By orthogonality, (9), we can rewrite the basis (8) as

$$u_a^+=e^{w_1/2}\left(\begin{array}{c}e^{w_2/2}u^+\\ e^{w_2/2}a\end{array}\right)u_b^{}=e^{w_3/2}\left(\begin{array}{c}e^{w_4/2}u^{}\\ e^{w_4/2}b\end{array}\right)$$

$$v_a^+=e^{i\alpha }e^{w_5/2}\left(\begin{array}{c}e^{w_2/2}u^+\\ e^{w_2/2}a\end{array}\right)v_b^{}=e^{i\delta }e^{w_6/2}\left(\begin{array}{c}e^{w_4/2}u^{}\\ e^{w_4/2}b\end{array}\right),$$
(10)
where the $`w`$s are related to the $`d`$s, $`w_1`$ = $`(d_1+d_2)/2,`$ $`w_2`$ = $`(d_1d_2)/2,`$ etc.

As with previous bases we rotate both upper and lower 2-vectors so that the basis acquires a common phase. We get

$$R_a^+u_a^+=e^{+i\theta /2}u_a^+R_b^{}u_b^{}=e^{+i\theta /2}u_b^{}R_a^+v_a^+=e^{+i\theta /2}v_a^+R_b^{}v_b^{}=e^{+i\theta /2}v_b^{},$$
(11)
where $`R_a^+`$ means applying $`R`$ to the upper 2-vector to generate the eigenvalue $`\mathrm{exp}(i\theta /2)`$ and $`R_a`$ to the lower 2-vector to generate the eigenvalue $`\mathrm{exp}(i\theta /2)`$, $`R_b^{}`$ means applying $`R^1`$ to the upper 2-vector to generate the eigenvalue $`\mathrm{exp}(i\theta /2)`$ and $`R_b`$ = $`R_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ to the lower 2-vector to generate the eigenvalue $`\mathrm{exp}(i\theta /2).`$

The rotated basis pairs (11) are not yet normalized to the same value. For example, we get

$$(R_a^+u_a^+)^{}R_a^+u_a^+=u_{a}^{+}{}_{}{}^{}u_a^+=2e^{w_1}\mathrm{cosh}w_2,$$
(12)
with similar expressions for the other normalization values. Normalization values are constrained by spacetime symmetry, as we find in the next section.

## 4 Projection Operators and Space-time

Any ordered set of four complex numbers can be written in terms of the basis pairs (11). Choose one such set and call it $`\psi .`$ We get

$$\psi =\alpha R_a^+u_a^++\beta R_b^{}u_b^{}+\gamma R_a^+v_a^++\delta R_b^{}v_b^{}=e^{i\theta /2}(\alpha u_a^++\beta u_b^{}+\gamma v_a^++\delta v_b^{}),$$
(13)
where $`\alpha `$ = $`(R_a^+u_a^+)^{}\psi /(2e^{w_1}\mathrm{cosh}w_2),`$ etc.

We now follow the procedure that gave projection operators I(22) and II(6) for the $`uv`$ basis in Sec. 4 of Part I and the $`fg`$ basis in Sec. 3 in Part II. We consider the basis-specifying parameters to be the $`w`$s in (10) and the $`n^k`$ of $`u^+`$ and $`u^{}.`$ This implies that $`a`$ and $`b`$ are known in terms of $`n^k`$ via the U(1)$`\times `$SU(2) transformation (7). Hence when the as-yet-unknown delta function parameters $`p^\mu `$ are determined, they will be functions of $`w`$ and $`n^k,`$ just as in Parts I and II.

Projection Operators. One can verify that the resulting projection operator for $`R_a^+u_a^+`$ is

$$K(2,1,R_a^+u_a^+)\gamma ^4\frac{d^3p^{}}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{1}{2e^{w_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}\mathrm{cosh}w_2^{}}e^{i\theta _2^{}/2}u_a^+u_{a}^{+}{}_{}{}^{}e^{i\theta _1^{}/2},$$
(14)
which gives

$$d^3x_1K(2,1,R_a^+u_a^+)\gamma ^4\psi (1)=e^{i\theta _2/2}(\alpha u_a^+)=\psi (2)_{\beta =\gamma =\delta =0},$$
(15)
where $`\psi (1)`$ is $`\psi `$ with $`\theta `$ = $`\theta _1`$ and $`\theta _i^{}/2`$ = $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{}+p_{}^{k}{}_{}{}^{}x_i^k.`$ The projection operators for the other basis pairs are similar.

Time, Surface Integral. Following the steps leading to I(28) that give space-time symmetry in all parts except for the matrix part, we can write the action of the projection operator in near-space-time form. We get

$$\psi (2)_{\beta =\gamma =\delta =0}=i\frac{d^4x_1d^4p^{}}{(2\pi )^4}e^{ip_\mu ^{}x_2^\mu }\frac{(\pm m)u_{a}^{+}{}_{}{}^{}u_{a}^{+}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\gamma ^4}{p_{}^{4}{}_{}{}^{2}(me^{w_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}\mathrm{cosh}w_2^{})^2+iϵ}e^{ip_\nu ^{}x_1^\nu }N_\sigma \gamma ^\sigma \psi (1),$$
(16)
where we introduce a fourth component of momentum and a fourth component of displacement, i.e. energy and time,

$$p_{}^{4}{}_{}{}^{}\pm me^{w_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}\mathrm{cosh}w_2^{}aa\mathrm{\Delta }_2^{}=p_{}^{4}{}_{}{}^{}t_2x_2^4=t_2,$$
(17)
$`a`$ is real, $`m`$ is a positive constant, and the $`p^k`$ are as-yet-unknown functions of $`w_i`$ and $`n^k.`$ In (16), the integral over $`x^\mu `$ is a surface integral over the surface $`S`$ which in the frame for (15) is just $`x^4`$ = 0. In the same frame $`N^\mu `$ = $`\{0,0,0,1\}.`$

Matrices. At this point in the process, we look to combine projection operators so that the matrices have a space-time invariant form. One can show that none of the four projection operators is space-time symmetric on its own. Hence, we require that two projection operators combine to make a space-time invariant matrix. In particular, we assume that

$$m(ii^{}+jj^{})\gamma ^4=+(E\gamma ^4p^k\gamma ^k+M1)$$

$$m(kk^{}+ll^{})\gamma ^4=(E^{}\gamma ^4p_{}^{k}{}_{}{}^{}\gamma ^k+M^{}1),i,j,k,l\{u_a^+,u_b^{},v_a^+,v_b^{}\},$$
(18)
where we can use the $`\theta `$ = 0 basis because the phase factors would cancel anyway. The parameters $`m,`$ $`M,`$ and $`M^{}`$ are positive or zero. The choice of signs on the right in (18) is made for convenience. We assume that $`\{p^k,E\}`$ and $`\{p_{}^{k}{}_{}{}^{},E^{}\}`$ transform as 4-vectors in order to have energy-momentum $`p_\mu `$ connect the invariant matrix $`p_\mu \gamma ^\mu `$ with the invariant phase $`p_\mu x^\mu `$ in (16).

One purpose of developing a characterization of spacetime objects is to provide a format for investigating alternatives. Such considerations have their place elsewhere. Hence ways other than (18) to make an invariant matrix are to be considered elsewhere.

There are just three ways to select two sets of two pairs $`\{i,j\}`$ and $`\{k,l\}`$ from a set of four. Hence we consider three cases.

Case 1: $`i`$ = $`u_a^+,`$ $`j`$ = $`u_b^{},`$ $`k`$ = $`v_a^+,`$ and $`l`$ = $`v_b^{}.`$ By (7), (10), and the $`ij`$ part of (18), we get

$$a=u^+b=u^{},$$
(19)
$$me^{w_1}=me^{w_3}=Mw_2=w_4$$

$$E=M\mathrm{cosh}w_2p^k=M\mathrm{sinh}(w_2)n^k(\mathrm{Case}1).$$

By (19), the expressions (10) for $`v_a^+`$ and $`v_b^{}`$ simplify. Then the $`kl`$ part of (18) gives

$$me^{w_5}=me^{w_6}=M^{}E^{}=M^{}\mathrm{cosh}w_2p_{}^{k}{}_{}{}^{}=M^{}\mathrm{sinh}(w_2)n^k.$$
(20)
Comparing (19) and (20), we see that the masses $`M`$ and $`M^{}`$ may differ. This is a normalization problem that can be fixed by making the sum of the projection matrices proportional to unity. By (18), one can show that $`M=M^{}`$ if and only if

$$u_a^+u_{a}^{+}{}_{}{}^{}+u_b^{}u_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+v_a^+v_{a}^{+}{}_{}{}^{}+v_b^{}v_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{}1,$$
(21)
where $`1`$ stands for the unit 4$`\times `$4 matrix.

The normalization values for $`u_a^+`$ and $`u_b^{}`$ must be the same to make a spacetime invariant, i.e. by (12) and (19) we have $`e^{w_1}\mathrm{cosh}w_2`$ = $`e^{w_3}\mathrm{cosh}w_4,`$ and, by (20), the normalization values for $`v_a^+`$ and $`v_b^{}`$ must be equal. But the normalizations for all four are the same only for equal particle and antiparticle masses $`M`$ = $`M^{}.`$

By (19), (20), and (21), the eigenvector basis (10) reduces to

$$u_a^+=\sqrt{\frac{M}{m}}\left(\begin{array}{c}e^{w_2/2}u^+\\ e^{w_2/2}u^+\end{array}\right)u_b^{}=\sqrt{\frac{M}{m}}\left(\begin{array}{c}e^{w_2/2}u^{}\\ e^{w_2/2}u^{}\end{array}\right)$$

$$v_a^+=e^{i\alpha }\sqrt{\frac{M}{m}}\left(\begin{array}{c}e^{w_2/2}u^+\\ e^{w_2/2}u^+\end{array}\right)v_b^{}=e^{i\delta }\sqrt{\frac{M}{m}}\left(\begin{array}{c}e^{w_2/2}u^{}\\ e^{w_2/2}u^{}\end{array}\right),$$
(22)
Thus the bases found for Case 1 are all essentially the same as the $`uv`$ basis of Part I, I(9). We recover the $`uv`$ basis when we select

$$m=Mw_2=w\alpha =\delta =0(\mathrm{Case}1).$$
(23)
By Part I, we conclude that Case 1 gives propagators that can describe a free electron and a free positron.

Case 2: $`i`$ = $`u_a^+,`$ $`j`$ = $`v_a^+,`$ $`k`$ = $`u_b^{},`$ and $`l`$ = $`v_b^{}.`$ By (7), (10), and the $`ij`$ expression in (18), we get

$$a=e^{i\nu }u^{}b=e^{i\zeta }u^+(\mathrm{Case}2)$$
(24)
$$M=0w_1=w_5E=me^{w_1}\mathrm{cosh}w_2p^k=me^{w_1}\mathrm{cosh}(w_2)n^k,$$

where $`\nu `$ and $`\zeta `$ are arbitrary phases. By (24), the $`kl`$ expression in (18) gives

$$M^{}=0w_3=w_6E^{}=me^{w_3}\mathrm{cosh}w_4p^k=me^{w_3}\mathrm{cosh}(w_4)n^k.$$
(25)
By (24) and (25) we see that spacetime invariance allows particle and antiparticle to have different energy-momenta when they are in one of the states of this basis. When we require the sum of the projection operators to be a multiple of the unit matrix, (21), we have

$$E=E^{}p^k=p_{}^{k}{}_{}{}^{}e^{w_3}\mathrm{cosh}(w_4)=e^{w_1}\mathrm{cosh}(w_2).$$
(26)
For simplicity, we take $`w_3`$ = $`w_1`$ and $`w_4`$ = $`w_2.`$

By (24), (25), and (26), the eigenvector basis (10) reduces to

$$u_a^+=e^{w_1/2}\left(\begin{array}{c}e^{w_2/2}u^+\\ e^{i\nu }e^{w_2/2}u^{}\end{array}\right)u_b^{}=e^{w_1/2}\left(\begin{array}{c}e^{w_2/2}u^{}\\ e^{i\zeta }e^{w_2/2}u^+\end{array}\right)$$

$$v_a^+=e^{i\alpha }e^{w_1/2}\left(\begin{array}{c}e^{w_2/2}u^+\\ e^{i\nu }e^{w_2/2}u^{}\end{array}\right)v_b^{}=e^{i\delta }e^{w_1/2}\left(\begin{array}{c}e^{w_2/2}u^{}\\ e^{i\zeta }e^{w_2/2}u^+\end{array}\right),$$
(27)
The bases that have spacetime symmetry under Case 2 are equivalent to the $`fg`$ basis II(1). To duplicate those particular pairs we choose

$$w_1=0w_2=w\alpha =\delta =\nu =\zeta =0.(\mathrm{Case}2)$$
(28)
The normalization parameter $`w_1`$ can be absorbed in $`m`$ and $`\alpha ,`$ $`\delta ,`$ $`\nu ,`$ and $`\zeta `$ are arbitrary phases. Hence, by Part II, Case 2 gives bases that lead to the neutrino and antineutrino propagators II(17) and II(21).

Case 3: $`i`$ = $`u_a^+,`$ $`j`$ = $`v_b^{},`$ $`k`$ = $`u_b^{},`$ and $`l`$ = $`v_a^+.`$ By (7), (10), and the $`ij`$ part of (18), we get

$$a=u^+b=u^{},(\mathrm{Case}3)$$
(29)
$$me^{w_1}=me^{w_6}=Mw_2=w_4$$

$$E=M\mathrm{cosh}w_2p^k=M\mathrm{sinh}(w_2)n^k.$$

By (29), the expressions (10) for $`u_b^{}`$ and $`v_a^+`$ simplify. Then the $`kl`$ version of (18) yields

$$me^{w_3}=M^{}w_3=w_5E^{}=M^{}\mathrm{cosh}w_2p_{}^{k}{}_{}{}^{}=M^{}\mathrm{sinh}(w_2)n^k,$$
(30)
Requiring that the sum of the projection matrices be proportional to unity, (21), gives

$$E=E^{}p^k=p_{}^{k}{}_{}{}^{}M=M^{}.$$
(31)
By (29), (30), and (31), the eigenvector basis (10) reduces to

$$u_a^+=\sqrt{\frac{M}{m}}\left(\begin{array}{c}e^{w_2/2}u^+\\ e^{w_2/2}u^+\end{array}\right)u_b^{}=\sqrt{\frac{M}{m}}\left(\begin{array}{c}e^{w_2/2}u^{}\\ e^{w_2/2}u^{}\end{array}\right)$$

$$v_a^+=e^{i\alpha }\sqrt{\frac{M}{m}}\left(\begin{array}{c}e^{w_2/2}u^+\\ e^{w_2/2}u^+\end{array}\right)v_b^{}=e^{i\delta }\sqrt{\frac{M}{m}}\left(\begin{array}{c}e^{w_2/2}u^{}\\ e^{w_2/2}u^{}\end{array}\right),$$
(32)
The basis (32) is essentially the same as the $`uv`$ basis in Part I, I(9). To get the $`uv`$ basis within a couple of signs, $`u_b^{}`$ $`v_{}^{}`$ and $`v_b^{}`$ $`u_{}^{},`$ put

$$m=Mw_2=w\alpha =\delta =0.(\mathrm{Case}3)$$
(33)
Thus, by Part I, Case 3 yields a basis that gives a free electron and a free positron propagator.

Spacetime invariance, i.e. the requirement (18), has returned only eigenvector bases that give electron or neutrino-like propagators. It follows that the only space-time invariant spin 1/2 propagators are electron-like or neutrino-like, within the limits of the assumptions applied in the process developed in this series of papers.

Furthermore spacetime symmetry results only when the two planes of an eigenvector basis are complementary in $`E^4.`$ Hence we have found a geometric property that signals the ability to construct spacetime.

## Appendix A U(1)$`\times `$SU(2) Theorem

Let $`u^+`$ and $`u^{}`$ be orthonormal 2-vectors. Let $`a`$ and $`b`$ be a second set of orthonormal 2-vectors, as in (3) and (4). As shown in Problem 2, it follows that $`u^+`$ and $`u^{}`$ are eigenvectors for rotations in one plane, plane 1, and $`a`$ and $`b`$ are eigenvectors in some plane, plane 2.

Theorem: One orthonormal 2-vector set $`\{a,b\}`$ can be found from another orthonormal set $`\{u^+,u^{}\}`$ by multiplication with a rotation matrix like $`R`$, I(1), and a phase factor, i.e. by the action of a U(1)$`\times `$SU(2) transformation. The proof follows.

Since it takes two linearly independent 2-vectors to span the space of 2-vectors, $`a`$ and $`b`$ can be expressed in terms of $`u^+`$ and $`u^{}.`$ Let $`T`$ be the matrix of coefficients relating $`a`$ and $`b`$ to $`u^+`$ and $`u^{}.`$

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}a\\ b\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}T_{11}& & T_{12}\\ T_{21}& & T_{22}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}u^+\\ u^{}\end{array}\right).$$
(34)
We need to show that $`T`$ has the form of a phase factor times a matrix like $`R`$, I(1).

Since $`a^{}a`$ = 1, $`b^{}b`$ = 1, and $`a^{}b`$ = 0, we get

$$T_{11}^2+T_{12}^2=1T_{21}^2+T_{22}^2=1T_{11}^{}T_{21}=T_{12}^{}T_{22}$$
(35)
Write $`(a^{}b)^{}(a^{}b)`$ = 0 in terms of the $`T_{ij}`$s. We have

$$T_{11}^2T_{21}^2+T_{11}^{}T_{21}T_{12}T_{22}^{}+T_{11}T_{21}^{}T_{12}^{}T_{22}+T_{12}^2T_{22}^2=0.$$
(36)
Now use (35) to eliminate $`T_{11}`$ and $`T_{11}^{}`$ from the first three terms in (36). Note that it is not necessary to divide by any $`T_{ij}`$ components. By simplifying the result we get

$$T_{21}^2=T_{12}^2.$$
(37)
By (35) and (37), we get

$$T_{11}^2=T_{22}^2.$$
(38)
These equations force $`T`$ to take the following form in terms of real valued phases $`\alpha ,`$ $`\beta ,`$ $`\gamma ,`$ $`\delta ,`$ and $`\eta .`$ We get

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}T_{11}& & T_{12}\\ T_{21}& & T_{22}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{exp}i\alpha \mathrm{cos}\eta & & \mathrm{exp}i\beta \mathrm{sin}\eta \\ \mathrm{exp}i\gamma \mathrm{sin}\eta & & \mathrm{exp}i\delta \mathrm{cos}\eta \end{array}\right),$$
(39)
where the new parameters here on the right have no relation to the other uses of the same symbols elsewhere in this paper.

By the rightmost equation in (35), i.e. $`a^{}b`$ = 0, we find that $`\beta +\gamma `$ = $`\alpha +\delta +2n\pi .`$ Since $`\alpha `$ = $`(\alpha +\delta )/2`$ $`+(\alpha \delta )/2,`$ $`\delta `$ = $`(\alpha +\delta )/2`$ $`(\alpha \delta )/2,`$ $`\beta `$ = $`(\alpha +\delta )/2`$ $`+(\beta \gamma )/2+n\pi ,`$ $`\gamma `$ = $`(\alpha +\delta )/2`$ $`(\beta \gamma )/2=n\pi ,`$ we have

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}T_{11}& & T_{12}\\ T_{21}& & T_{22}\end{array}\right)=e^{i(\alpha +\delta )/2}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{exp}[i(\alpha \delta )/2]\mathrm{cos}\eta & & (1)^n\mathrm{exp}[i(\beta \gamma )/2]\mathrm{sin}\eta \\ (1)^{n+1}\mathrm{exp}[i(\beta \gamma )/2]\mathrm{sin}\eta & & \mathrm{exp}[i(\alpha \delta )/2]\mathrm{cos}\eta \end{array}\right).$$
(40)
We see that $`T`$ is a phase factor times a unimodular unitary matrix; the set of such matrices forms a $`2\times 2`$ representation of SU(2), which is equivalent to a representation of rotations in $`E^3`$ or $`E^4.`$

To put the SU(2) matrix in (40) in the same form as $`R`$, see I(1), we introduce new variables $`\kappa `$ and $`N^k`$,

$$\mathrm{cos}(\kappa /2)=\mathrm{cos}[(\alpha \delta )/2]\mathrm{cos}\eta N^3\mathrm{sin}(\kappa /2)=\mathrm{sin}[(\alpha \delta )/2]\mathrm{cos}\eta $$
(41)
$$N^1\mathrm{sin}(\kappa /2)=(1)^n\mathrm{sin}[(\beta \gamma )/2]\mathrm{sin}\eta N^2\mathrm{sin}(\kappa /2)=(1)^n\mathrm{cos}[(\beta \gamma )/2]\mathrm{sin}\eta .$$

One can show that $`N^k`$ is a unit 3-vector, i.e. $`N_{}^{k}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ = 1, for $`\kappa `$ 0. In terms of the new variables, we get

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}a\\ b\end{array}\right)=T\left(\begin{array}{c}u^+\\ u^{}\end{array}\right)=e^{i\chi }[\tau ^4\mathrm{cos}(\kappa /2)+iN^k\tau ^k\mathrm{sin}(\kappa /2)]\left(\begin{array}{c}u^+\\ u^{}\end{array}\right)=e^{i\chi }e^{iN^k\tau ^k\kappa /2}\left(\begin{array}{c}u^+\\ u^{}\end{array}\right),$$
(42)
where $`\chi `$ = $`(\alpha +\delta )/2.`$ The $`2\times 2`$ matrices $`\tau `$ are the same as the $`\sigma `$ matrices, I(2),

$$\tau ^1=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& & 1\\ 1& & 0\end{array}\right)\tau ^2=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& & i\\ i& & 0\end{array}\right)\tau ^3=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& & 0\\ 0& & 1\end{array}\right)\tau ^4=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& & 0\\ 0& & 1\end{array}\right).$$
(43)
We write a spin matrix as a $`\tau `$ when it is applied to a pair of 2-vectors and we write the spin matrix as a $`\sigma `$ when it is applied to the two components of a 2-vector.

Comparing (42) and I(1) completes the proof.

## Appendix B Problems

1. Consider the pair $`u_+^+`$ = $`\left(\begin{array}{c}e^{w/2}u^+\\ e^{w/2}u^+\end{array}\right)`$ of the $`uv`$ basis, I(9). Show that $`u_+^+`$ does not represent any vector quantity $`\chi `$ in $`E^4.`$ Find two pairs $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$ that do represent vector quantities $`\chi _1`$ and $`\chi _2`$ and whose sum is $`u_+^+,`$ i.e. $`X_1+X_2`$ = $`u_+^+.`$ Assume that the upper eigenvector $`u^+`$ (a 2-vector) is an eigenvector for rotations about the origin in plane 1 and the lower eigenvector $`u^+`$ is an eigenvector for rotations about the origin in plane 2. Also assume that plane 1 and plane 2 span $`E^4.`$

\[Hint: An eigenvector represents a vector perpendicular to the plane of rotation. A vector in the plane of rotation is represented by a sum of the eigenvectors for rotations in the plane.\]

2. Prove the following theorem. Theorem: two orthonormal 2-vectors, say $`\delta `$ and $`ϵ,`$ are the eigenvectors of some rotation. (One way is identify the parameters in $`u^+`$ in I(3) in terms of the components of one 2-vector and use orthonormality to show the other must have the form of $`u^{}`$ in I(3). Then construct the matrix $`R`$ and show $`R\delta `$ = $`\mathrm{exp}(i\theta /2)\delta `$ and that $`Rϵ`$ = $`\mathrm{exp}(i\theta /2)ϵ,`$ thereby completing the proof.)

3. Consider two coordinate planes 12 and 34, where 1234 indicates rectangular coordinates. If we decide the positive rotation direction for plane 12 then there are two ways to orient the rotations in plane 34. If one orientation gives a positive phase $`+\theta /2`$ for a rotation in the plane 34 then the other orientation gives a negative phase $`\theta /2.`$ Thus the occurance of two orientations for rotations in plane 34 means the lower 2-vector can have either the same phase as or the opposite phase of the upper 2-vector.

This suggests that we investigate both combinations of phases, $`++`$ and $`+,`$ for upper and lower 2-vectors. The rotated basis pairs for an electron in Part I and a neutrino in Part II have upper and lower 2-vectors with like phase $`\theta /2.`$ Carry through the processes from rotated basis to spacetime invariant electron and neutrino propagators with the upper 2-vectors having phase $`\theta /2`$ and the lower 2-vectors having the opposite phase $`\theta /2.`$

4. Show that $`2\times 2`$ matrices cannot provide a nontrivial representation of all rotations about the origin in Euclidean spaces of five or more dimensions. One way to show this is to consider a $`2\times 2`$ matrix representation in a four dimensional subspace and then try to extend that representation to rotations in unrepresented planes. (For an application of $`2\times 2`$ matrix representations of rotations in 4d subspaces of 16d, see .)