text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The original AdS/CFT correspondence , motivated by considering a stack of D3-branes in ten dimensional space, states that $`𝒩=4`$ SU($`N`$) super Yang-Mills theory is dual to type IIB string theory in the background of five-dimensional anti-de Sitter space (AdS5) cross a five-sphere ($`𝐒^5`$). Although the string theory in this background is difficult to work with, the low-energy supergravity (SUGRA) limit of string theory is accessible to quantitative calculations. This limit corresponds to the regime of large ’t Hooft coupling in the gauge theory. There exists a more general correspondence between conformal field theories at finite temperature and asymptotically AdS spaces containing black holes . Noticing that the real-time formulation of finite temperature field theory (the Schwinger-Keldysh, or close-time-path, formalism) involves a doubling of the degrees of freedom , and that the full Penrose diagram for asymptotically AdS containing a black hole has two boundaries, many have  conjectured that the doubler fields can be thought of as fields living on the second boundary of the AdS dual.

In this paper, we suggest a precise prescription for computing real-time Green’s functions from gravity. We show how one can reproduce the full $`2\times 2`$ matrix of two-point correlation functions for a scalar field and its doubling partner using the AdS dual (recall that in the real-time formalism, the mixed two-point correlators involving one real field and one doubler field do not vanish). Moreover, as our approach is nothing more than a refinement of the usual prescription of taking functional derivatives of a boundary gravitational action, the procedure should easily generalize to higher-point correlators.

There have been many previous attempts to obtain Minkowski-signature correlation functions from AdS/CFT. The early prescriptions for matching correlation functions in the field theory to the classical behavior of bulk fields in the supergravity involved a Wick rotation to a Euclidean signature metric. This rotation works only at zero temperature, and perhaps obscures the point that the correspondence should work equally well for the original Minkowski signature. The difficulty with working in the original Minkowski signature is that one generally has greater freedom to set boundary conditions, and it is not clear a priori which boundary condition corresponds to which propagator in a rather large set of Green’s functions: advanced, retarded, Feynman, etc.

Although the Euclidean correlation functions can in principle be analytically continued to yield the Feynman Green’s function, and through it all physical Minkowski signature correlators, it is often desirable to be able to compute the Minkowski signature correlators directly. Direct computation eliminates the need for analytic continuation from a discrete set of Matsubara frequencies which can be technically difficult. Moreover, in finite-temperature AdS/CFT, one can solve the bulk field equation on the gravity side only in the large or small frequency limits. Analytically continuing a function that is only known in certain limits is not always possible.

Minkowski-signature prescriptions have been investigated before , and recently a concrete proposal has been put forward . Ref.  makes a particular choice of boundary conditions and identifies the retarded Green’s function $`G_R`$ in one particular term of the resulting boundary gravitational action. In (1+1)-dimensional conformal field theory where the Euclidean Green’s function can be computed exactly and the analytic continuation to a Minkowski signature metric can be performed, the prescription gives the correct $`G_R`$ . Moreover, in the infrared limit the $`G_R`$ computed from the prescription satisfies the constraints imposed by hydrodynamics (see e.g. ). However, the prescription of Ref.  does not follow from taking functional derivatives, and so the prescription cannot be directly generalized to higher point correlators.

In contrast, the prescription presented in this paper allows for the calculation of all correlators, including the higher-point ones, in finite temperature field theories with asymptotically AdS (aAdS) duals. The zero-temperature correlators can be obtained as a limit. We will also see how the doubler fields of the Schwinger-Keldysh formalism emerge from gravity.

Our results come from understanding black hole physics. Our field theories are dual to asymptotically AdS spaces containing black holes, and we draw heavily on the ideas of Hawking and Hartle , Unruh , and Israel  who studied how black holes produce thermal radiation. The choice of boundary condition for the bulk fields in AdS are sensitive to the choice of vacuum and coordinate system in ways that are well studied in the context of Hawking radiation. We will see that the thermal nature of black hole physics gives rise to the thermal nature of the field theory in a more or less straightforward way.

Saving the details for sections 3 and 4, note that the analog of Kruskal coordinates exists for these aAdS spaces containing black holes. The correct prescription for calculating Minkowski signature Green’s functions is the usual AdS/CFT prescription worked out by  where one selects “natural” boundary conditions at the horizon with respect to the analog of Kruskal time. In the context of Hawking radiation, Kruskal time is often used to define a vacuum state. With respect to the gauge theory time, on the other hand, an observer should see a thermal background. If we were to use gauge theory time to examine the bulk behavior of a field, we would need to take into account this thermal background, a complication which explains some of the early confusion in the literature with respect to these Minkowski signature Green’s functions.

In Kruskal coordinates, the full Penrose diagram (see figure 1) for aAdS space becomes apparent. Israel  pointed out that the fields in the mirror image universe in the L quadrant of the Penrose diagram should be the doubler fields of the Schwinger-Keldysh formalism in curved space. The authors of  made the further conjecture that the fields on the boundary of the L quadrant should look like ghosts (or doubler fields) from the point of view of the finite temperature CFT dual. Being careful about boundary conditions, we are able to reproduce the $`2\times 2`$ matrix of propagators for the field and its doubler using the aAdS description.

We begin by reviewing in section two the Schwinger-Keldysh formalism for real-time finite temperature field theory. Section three contains details of our refined prescription for calculating directly Minkowski signature correlators in AdS/CFT. We focus on the case of a scalar in a non-extremal D3-brane background, but the prescription should be much more broadly applicable. In section 4, we explain how our choice of boundary conditions are related to the boundary conditions imposed by a Feynman propagator.

## 2 Review of Schwinger-Keldysh Formalism for Finite-Temperature Field Theory

In the Schwinger-Keldysh formalism, fields (which we denote generically by $`O`$) live on a time contour $`𝒞`$ which goes from some initial time $`t_\mathrm{i}`$ to $`t_\mathrm{i}i\beta `$, but makes an excursion along the real time axis in between. A version of the contour is drawn in Fig. 2. The contour starts at an initial time $`t_\mathrm{i}`$, goes to some (final) time $`t_\mathrm{f}`$, then turns to the Euclidean domain and runs to $`t_\mathrm{f}i\sigma `$ (where $`\sigma `$ is an arbitrary length), after which it runs backward along the real time axis to $`t_\mathrm{i}i\sigma `$ and then again turns to the Euclidean direction and goes to $`t_\mathrm{i}i\beta `$. The starting point $`A`$ (corresponding to time $`t_\mathrm{i}`$) and the ending point $`B`$ (corresponding to $`t_\mathrm{f}`$) of the contour are identified, and one requires that $`O|_B=O|_A`$ if $`O`$ is bosonic and $`O|_B=O|_A`$ if $`O`$ is fermionic. For definiteness, we will assume $`O`$ to be bosonic.

The parameter $`\sigma `$ can be chosen arbitrarily . One possible choice is $`\sigma =0`$, in which case the two Minkowski parts of the contour lie on top of each other . To make contact with gravity another choice, $`\sigma =\beta /2`$, is the most convenient.111 The $`\sigma =\beta /2`$ contour was studied in a field theoretic context in .

The action of a field configuration is the sum of contributions from the four parts of the contour,

$$S=\underset{𝒞}{}𝑑tL(t)=\underset{t_\mathrm{i}}{\overset{t_\mathrm{f}}{}}𝑑tL(t)i\underset{0}{\overset{\sigma }{}}𝑑\tau L(t_\mathrm{f}i\tau )\underset{t_\mathrm{i}}{\overset{t_\mathrm{f}}{}}𝑑tL(ti\sigma )i\underset{\sigma }{\overset{\beta }{}}𝑑\tau L(t_\mathrm{i}i\tau ),$$
(1)
where

$$L(t)=𝑑\stackrel{}{x}[\varphi (t,\stackrel{}{x})],$$
(2)
and $``$ is the Lagrangian density.

By introducing a source which is not vanishing on the two Minkowski parts of the contour, one defines the generating functional

$$Z[\varphi _1,\varphi _2]=𝒟\varphi \mathrm{exp}\left(iS+i\underset{t_\mathrm{i}}{\overset{t_\mathrm{f}}{}}𝑑t𝑑\stackrel{}{x}\varphi _1(x)O_1(x)i\underset{t_\mathrm{i}}{\overset{t_\mathrm{f}}{}}𝑑t𝑑\stackrel{}{x}\varphi _2(x)O_2(x)\right).$$
(3)
Here $`\varphi _{1,2}`$ and $`O_{1,2}`$ are the source and the fields on the two Minkowski parts of the contour, i.e.,

$`\varphi _1(t,\stackrel{}{x})=\varphi (t,\stackrel{}{x}),`$ $`O_1(t,\stackrel{}{x})=O(t,\stackrel{}{x}),`$ (4a)
$`\varphi _2(t,\stackrel{}{x})=\varphi (ti\sigma ,\stackrel{}{x}),`$ $`O_2(t,\stackrel{}{x})=O(ti\sigma ,\stackrel{}{x}).`$ (4b)
By taking second variations of $`Z`$ with respect to the source $`\varphi `$ one finds the Schwinger-Keldysh propagator,

$$iG_{ab}(xy)=\frac{1}{i^2}\frac{\delta ^2\mathrm{ln}Z[\varphi _1,\varphi _2]}{\delta \varphi _a(x)\delta \varphi _b(y)}=i\left(\begin{array}{cc}G_{11}& G_{12}\\ G_{21}& G_{22}\end{array}\right).$$
(5)
In the operator formalism, the Schwinger-Keldysh propagator corresponds to the contour-ordered correlation function. In contour ordering, time is ordered normally on the upper part of the contour and reversely on the lower part, and moreover any point on the lower part is considered to have larger “contour time” than any point on the upper part. This means

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill iG_{11}(t,\stackrel{}{x})=TO_1(t,\stackrel{}{x})O_1(0),& iG_{12}(t,\stackrel{}{x})=O_2(0)O_1(t,\stackrel{}{x}),\hfill \\ \hfill iG_{21}(t,\stackrel{}{x})=O_2(t,\stackrel{}{x})O_1(0),& iG_{22}(t,\stackrel{}{x})=\overline{T}O_2(t,\stackrel{}{x})O_2(0).\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
where $`\overline{T}`$ denotes reversed time ordering, and

$`O_1(t,\stackrel{}{x})`$ $`=`$ $`e^{iHti\stackrel{}{P}\stackrel{}{x}}O(0)e^{iHt+i\stackrel{}{P}\stackrel{}{x}},`$ (7a)
$`O_2(t,\stackrel{}{x})`$ $`=`$ $`e^{iH(ti\sigma )i\stackrel{}{P}\stackrel{}{x}}O(0)e^{iH(ti\sigma )+i\stackrel{}{P}\stackrel{}{x}}.`$ (7b)
The Schwinger-Keldysh correlators are related to the retarded and advanced Green’s functions, which are defined as

$`iG_R(xy)`$ $`=`$ $`\theta (x^0y^0)[O(x),O(y)],`$ (8a)
$`iG_A(xy)`$ $`=`$ $`\theta (y^0x^0)[O(y),O(x)].`$ (8b)
If one goes to momentum space,

$$G(k)=𝑑xe^{ikx}G(x),$$
(9)
we find that

$$G_A(k)=G_R^{}(k),$$
(10)
and, by inserting the complete set of states into the definitions (6) and (8), one finds the following relations between the Schwinger-Keldysh correlators and the retarded one,

$`G_{11}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Re}G_R(k)+i\mathrm{coth}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{2T}}\mathrm{Im}G_R(k),\omega k^0,`$ (11a)
$`G_{12}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2ie^{(\beta \sigma )\omega }}{1e^{\beta \omega }}}\mathrm{Im}G_R(k),`$ (11b)
$`G_{21}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2ie^{\sigma \omega }}{1e^{\beta \omega }}}\mathrm{Im}G_R(k),`$ (11c)
$`G_{22}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Re}G_R(k)+i\mathrm{coth}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{2T}}\mathrm{Im}G_R(k).`$ (11d)
One sees that when $`\sigma =\beta /2`$ the matrix $`G_{ab}`$ is symmetric, $`G_{12}=G_{21}`$, which makes this choice convenient. We will see that this particular value of $`\sigma `$ appears naturally in gravity.

## 3 Lorentzian Field Theory Correlators from Gravity

Our formalism for computing real-time Green’s functions should work for a broad class of finite-temperature field theories. The theories are required to have an asymptotically anti-de Sitter (aAdS) space dual with a Schwarzschild-type black hole in the center. The zero-temperature correlators can be obtained in the limit where the black hole vanishes. Typical examples of such asymptotically AdS spaces arise from studying non-extremal D3-branes (AdS5), M2-branes (AdS4), or M5-branes (AdS7). AdS3 arises in studying collections of non-extremal D1- and D5-branes.

To illustrate the formalism with a concrete example, we will focus on the case of non-extremal D3-branes. We will be using a gravitational description for calculating correlators of $`𝒩=4`$ SU($`N`$) super Yang-Mills theory at finite temperature in the $`N\mathrm{}`$ and $`g_{YM}^2N\mathrm{}`$ limit.

The metric on a stack of non-extremal D3-branes is

$$ds^2=H(r)^{1/2}\left[fdt^2+d\stackrel{}{x}^2\right]+H(r)^{1/2}\left(f^1dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2\right)$$
(12)
where $`H(r)=1+R^4/r^4`$, $`f(r)=1r_0^4/r^4`$, $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2`$ is the metric on a unit $`𝐒^5`$, and $`R^4N`$ is proportional to the number of D3-branes. In these coordinates, there is a horizon at $`r=r_0`$. In the near horizon limit ($`rR`$), the metric becomes

$$ds^2=\frac{(\pi TR)^2}{u}\left(f(u)dt^2+d\stackrel{}{x}^2\right)+\frac{R^2}{4u^2f(u)}du^2+R^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2$$
(13)
where $`T=r_0/\pi R^2`$ is the Hawking temperature and we have introduced $`u=r_0^2/r^2`$. Here, $`u=0`$ is the boundary of this aAdS space while $`u=1`$ corresponds to the horizon.

As a warm-up and review, let us consider the behavior of a scalar field $`\varphi `$ of mass $`m`$ in this aAdS space. The field $`\varphi `$ obeys the wave equation.

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}}_\mu \sqrt{g}g^{\mu \nu }_\nu \varphi m^2\varphi `$
$`=`$ $`4u^3_u\left({\displaystyle \frac{f}{u}}_u\varphi \right)+{\displaystyle \frac{u}{(\pi T)^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{f}}_t^2+_\stackrel{}{x}^2\right)\varphi m^2R^2\varphi `$
where the $`\mu ,\nu ,\mathrm{}`$ run over the indices of the aAdS5, $`t`$, $`x^1`$, $`x^2`$, $`x^3`$, and $`u`$. To analyze this differential equation, one makes a Fourier decomposition

$$\varphi (x,u)=\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}e^{ikx}\varphi (k,u).$$
(14)
The function $`\varphi (k,u)`$ satisfies the equation

$$0=4u^3_u\left(\frac{f}{u}_u\varphi (k,u)\right)+\frac{u}{(\pi T)^2f}\left(\omega ^2f|\stackrel{}{k}|^2\right)\varphi (k,u)m^2R^2\varphi (k,u)$$
(15)
which we cannot solve analytically. However, we can analyze the solution at large and small $`u`$. At small $`u`$, close to the boundary, the space looks like ordinary $`AdS_5`$ and we get two possible scalings,

$$\varphi (k,u)\varphi (k)u^\alpha _{}+A(k)u^{\alpha _+}$$
(16)
where $`\alpha _\pm `$ is a solution to $`4\alpha (\alpha 2)=m^2R^2`$. Close to the horizon, $`\varphi (1u)^\beta `$ where $`\beta =\pm i\omega /4\pi T`$ and one can choose either sign. In Euclidean signature, $`\beta `$ is real: $`\beta =\pm \omega /4\pi T`$ and only one solution is well behaved close to $`u=1`$.

The AdS/CFT prescription fixes one boundary condition at the boundary $`u=0`$ by fixing $`\varphi (k)`$. In the Euclidean case, regularity of the solution at $`u=1`$ provides the other boundary condition. However, in Minkowski signature there is an ambiguity, since now both solutions are regular at the horizon.

The authors of Ref.  take the point of view that the black hole should absorb everything that comes to the event horizon and so take purely incoming boundary conditions. This statement would seem to mean $`\varphi (x,u)e^{i\omega t}(1u)^{i\omega /4\pi T}`$ near the horizon. As we mentioned, the prescription of Ref.  does not allow one to compute higher-point Green’s functions; thus we need a more general prescription. To describe this prescription one needs to use a coordinate system which covers the whole Penrose diagram. This system is analogous to the Kruskal coordinates for Schwarzschild black holes. Indeed, close to the horizon, our metric reduces to a Schwarzschild black hole,

$$ds^22(\pi TR)^2\left(\left(1\frac{2M}{\rho }\right)dt^2+\left(1\frac{2M}{\rho }\right)^1d\rho ^2\right)+\mathrm{}$$
(17)
where $`T=1/8\pi M`$ and $`u=2M/\rho `$. Near the horizon, the transformation to the Kruskal coordinates $`U`$ and $`V`$ is the same as for Schwarzschild black holes,

$`U`$ $`=`$ $`4Me^{(tr_{})/4M},`$
$`V`$ $`=`$ $`4Me^{(t+r_{})/4M}`$
where $`r_{}=\rho +2M\mathrm{ln}|(\rho /2M)1|`$, keeping in mind that $`\rho 2M`$ in this near horizon limit. Kruskal time is defined as $`t_KU+V`$ while the radial coordinate can be thought of as $`x_KVU`$.

In these Kruskal coordinates, the structure of the full Penrose diagram for this aAdS space becomes apparent (see figure 1). In the initial discussion of a scalar in aAdS, we were working in the R quadrant where $`U<0`$ and $`V>0`$ but there are three other quadrants, two of which have singularities. The L quadrant where $`U>0`$ and $`V<0`$ will be very important in what is to follow. The Kruskal radial coordinate $`x_K`$ has been chosen so that its value increases as we move from the left to the right of the Penrose diagram.

In what follows we will need to distinguish between incoming and outgoing modes, and positive- and negative-frequency modes. We illustrate the distinctions in the example of four plane-wave solutions with frequency $`\pm \omega `$, $`\omega >0`$,

$`e^{i\omega U}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\omega (t_Kx_K)/2},`$ (18a)
$`e^{i\omega V}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\omega (t_K+x_K)/2},`$ (18b)
$`e^{i\omega U}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\omega (t_Kx_K)/2},`$ (18c)
$`e^{i\omega V}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\omega (t_K+x_K)/2}.`$ (18d)
The modes (18a) and (18c) are outgoing (the wave front moves to larger $`x_K`$ as $`t_K`$ increases), while (18b) and (18d) are incoming waves. In general, any solution to the plane wave equations can be decomposed into the sum of a function of $`U`$ and a function of $`V`$. The part depending on $`U`$ is a superposition of (18a) and (18c) and is outgoing on the R quadrant, while the part depending on $`V`$ is a superposition of (18b) and (18d) is incoming on the same quadrant. In our terminology the notion of incoming and outgoing is switched on the L quadrant. We can say that the notion of time $`t`$ far from the horizon reverses direction in the L quadrant.

The subtleties of defining positive- and negative-frequency modes are well known in the context of quantization of fields on the gravitational background of a black hole . By using $`t_K`$ to define the vacuum state of the quantum field, one finds that an observer far from the horizon experiences a thermal bath of radiation. This fact can be translated into a horizon boundary condition for our prescription.

Among the four plane waves considered above, (18a) and (18b) have positive frequency, and (18c) and (18d) are of negative frequency. If one extends these mode functions to the complex $`U`$ and $`V`$ planes, one sees that the positive-frequency modes (18a) and (18b) are analytic in the lower half of the $`U`$ or $`V`$ planes, while the negative-frequency modes (18c) and (18d) are analytic in the upper half-planes. Since taking superposition does not alter these analytic properties, one finds that a solution to the wave equation is composed of only positive-frequency modes if it is analytic in the lower $`U`$ and $`V`$ half-planes, and vice versa.

For our purposes it will be useful to work in the original $`t`$ and $`r`$ coordinates. It is simply a matter of convenience, since any function of $`t`$ and $`r`$ can be written in terms of $`U`$ and $`V`$. In the original coordinates one can solve the wave equation separately in the R and L quadrants and obtain one set of mode functions in each quadrant,

$$u_{k,R,\pm }=\{\begin{array}{cc}e^{ikx}f_{\pm k}(r)\hfill & \text{in R}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{in L}\hfill \end{array}u_{k,L,\pm }=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{in R}\hfill \\ e^{ikx}f_{\pm k}(r)\hfill & \text{in L}\hfill \end{array}.$$
(19)
Some explanation of the notation is needed. In Eq. (19) $`k`$ is a four-vector $`(k^0,k^1,\mathrm{})`$, so $`kx=k^0t+k^1x^1+\mathrm{}`$. The function $`f_k`$ is a solution to the scalar wave Eq. (15) which behaves like $`e^{ik^0r_{}}`$ near the horizon. We denote $`\omega =k^0`$. The function $`f_k(r)`$ has two important properties: $`f_k^{}=f_k`$, and $`f_k`$ is independent of the sign of $`\stackrel{}{k}=(k^1,k^2,\mathrm{})`$. By definition, the R modes vanish in the L quadrant and the L modes vanish in the R quadrant. As $`t`$ and $`x`$ denote two separate coordinate systems in the R and L quadrants, we add a subscript to distinguish $`t_L`$ from $`t_R`$.

The four modes defined in Eq. (19), in principle, can be expanded in terms of modes defined in the Kruskal coordinates (18). Without performing the explicit Fourier transform, one notices that near the horizon $`u_{k,R,+}`$ and $`u_{k,L,+}`$ are functions of $`U`$, so they are outgoing modes. Analogously $`u_{k,R,}`$ and $`u_{k,L,}`$ are functions of $`V`$ and hence are incoming waves. The modes (19) contain, however, both positive- and negative-frequency parts. To separate modes with different signs of frequency one defines, following Unruh , the linear combinations that mix modes on the two quadrants,

$`u_{1,k}`$ $`=`$ $`u_{k,R,+}+e^{\omega /2T}u_{k,L,+},`$ (20a)
$`u_{2,k}`$ $`=`$ $`u_{k,R,+}+e^{\omega /2T}u_{k,L,+},`$ (20b)
$`u_{3,k}`$ $`=`$ $`u_{k,R,}+e^{\omega /2T}u_{k,L,},`$ (20c)
$`u_{4,k}`$ $`=`$ $`u_{k,R,}+e^{\omega /2T}u_{k,L,}.`$ (20d)
To ensure that

$$u_1U^{i\omega /2\pi T}\text{and}u_4V^{i\omega /2\pi T}$$
(21)
are continuous across the horizon, a branch cut must be placed in the upper halves of the complex $`U`$ and $`V`$ planes. Thus, these modes are analytic in the lower halves of the complex $`U`$ and $`V`$ planes, and are positive-frequency. Similarly,

$$u_2\overline{U}^{i\omega /2\pi T}\text{and}u_3\overline{V}^{i\omega /2\pi T}$$
(22)
are analytic in the upper halves of the complex $`U`$ and $`V`$ planes and carry negative frequencies. The characteristics of the modes $`u_{i,k}`$ can be summarized as follows:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill u_{1,k}:& \text{outgoing, positive-frequency},\hfill \\ \hfill u_{2,k}:& \text{outgoing, negative-frequency},\hfill \\ \hfill u_{3,k}:& \text{incoming, negative-frequency},\hfill \\ \hfill u_{4,k}:& \text{incoming, positive-frequency}.\hfill \end{array}$$

According to the AdS/CFT philosophy, the generating functional $`Z[\varphi _1,\varphi _2]`$ can be found by evaluating the action of a solution to the field equations, with a boundary condition such that $`\varphi _{1,2}`$ are the values of the field at the boundaries. The Penrose diagram has two boundaries, so we assume that our field $`\varphi `$ is equal to $`\varphi _1`$ on the boundary of the R quadrant and $`\varphi _2`$ on the boundary of the L quadrant. Since a general solution is a superposition of four modes (20), one needs to impose boundary conditions at the horizon to eliminate two of the four modes.

Since our goal is to reproduce the Schwinger-Keldysh propagator, which is defined with contour time ordering, it is natural to impose the condition that positive frequency modes should be purely ingoing at the horizon in the R quadrant while negative frequency modes should be purely outgoing at the horizon in the R quadrant. Indeed, in field theory the Feynman propagator $`G_F(xy)`$ contains only positive-frequency modes in the limit $`x^0\mathrm{}`$ and negative-frequency modes in the opposite limit $`x^0\mathrm{}`$.222For the free propagator this comes from the fact that the poles of $`G_F`$ as a function of the complex frequency $`\omega `$ are located below the real axis for $`\omega >0`$ and above for $`\omega <0`$. In the next section we will show that at zero temperature one can arrive at this “natural” boundary condition independently by a Wick rotation from Euclidean space. These boundary conditions select out $`u_2`$ and $`u_4`$ as the only components that we can use to describe the bulk behavior of a real scalar field, so

$$\varphi (x,r)=\underset{k}{}\alpha _ku_{2,k}+\beta _ku_{4,k}.$$
(23)
We now have enough boundary conditions to specify uniquely the behavior of the scalar field. By requiring that (23) approaches $`\varphi _{1,2}`$ on the two boundaries, we can solve for $`\alpha _k`$ and $`\beta _k`$. The result reads

$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \varphi (k,r)|_R& =\left((n+1)f_k^{}(r_R)nf_k(r_R)\right)\varphi _1(k)\hfill \\ & +\sqrt{n(n+1)}\left(f_k(r_R)f_k^{}(r_R)\right)\varphi _2(k),\hfill \end{array}`$ (24a)
$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \varphi (k,r)|_L& =\sqrt{n(n+1)}\left(f_k^{}(r_L)f_k(r_L)\right)\varphi _1(k)\hfill \\ & +\left((n+1)f_k(r_L)nf_k^{}(r_L)\right)\varphi _2(k),\hfill \end{array}`$ (24b)
where $`n(\mathrm{exp}(\omega /T)1)^1`$. The $`f_k(r)`$ are normalized such that $`f_k(r_B)=1`$ at the boundary. In the above expressions, we took the Fourier transform of $`\varphi (x,r)`$ with respect to $`x_R`$ for the portion in the R quadrant while we took the Fourier transform with respect to $`x_L`$ for $`\varphi (x,r)`$ in the L quadrant.

From these two equations (24a) and (24b), it is straightforward to read off the bulk-to-boundary propagators. The added complication is that with two source terms and two different space-time (or bulk) regions, there are now four different propagators. For instance, the first term on the right hand side of Eq. (24a) is the bulk-to-boundary propagator for the R boundary and the R bulk. The second term in this equation is the bulk-to-boundary propagator for the L boundary and the R bulk. Eq. (24b) then gives the bulk-to-boundary propagators for the L bulk.

Now we are finally ready to apply the standard recipe from AdS/CFT correspondence for computing Green’s functions. The classical boundary action is

$$\frac{K}{2}_R\sqrt{g}g^{rr}\varphi (k,r)_r\varphi (k,r)\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{K}{2}_L\sqrt{g}g^{rr}\varphi (k,r)_r\varphi (k,r)\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4},$$
(25)
where $`K`$ is some overall normalization. The conjecture of Ref.  is that the retarded and advanced Green’s functions are related to $`f_k`$ in the following way,

$$G_R(k)=K\sqrt{g}g^{rr}f_k(r)_rf_k^{}(r)|_{r_B};G_A(k)=K\sqrt{g}g^{rr}f_k^{}(r)_rf_k(r)|_{r_B}.$$
(26)
Using the normalization of the $`f_k`$, the radial derivative of $`\varphi (k,r)`$ evaluated close to the R or L boundary is then

$`K\sqrt{g}g^{rr}_r\varphi |_R`$ $`=`$ $`[(1+n)G_RnG_A]\varphi _1+\sqrt{n(1+n)}(G_AG_R)\varphi _2,`$ (27a)
$`K\sqrt{g}g^{rr}_r\varphi |_L`$ $`=`$ $`[(1+n)G_AnG_R]\varphi _2+\sqrt{n(1+n)}(G_RG_A)\varphi _1.`$ (27b)
The boundary action becomes

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill S& =\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}[\varphi _1(k)((1+n)G_R(k)nG_A(k))\varphi _1(k)\hfill \\ & \varphi _2(k)\left((1+n)G_A(k)nG_R(k)\right)\varphi _2(k)\hfill \\ & +\varphi _1(k)\sqrt{n(1+n)}(G_A(k)G_R(k))\varphi _2(k)\hfill \\ & +\varphi _2(k)\sqrt{n(1+n)}(G_A(k)G_R(k))\varphi _1(k)].\hfill \end{array}$$
(28)
Taking functional derivatives of $`S`$ with respect to $`\varphi _1(k)`$ and $`\varphi _2(k)`$ yields precisely the Schwinger-Keldysh propagators (11a)–(11d) with $`\sigma =\beta /2`$. One thus concludes that if the conjecture (26) is valid, then the Schwinger-Keldysh correlators can be found by taking functional derivatives of the classical action. Vice versa, if one take the classical action as the starting point, then by taking functional derivatives one can find all Schwinger-Keldysh correlators which, in conjunction with Eqs. (11a)–(11d) will give us the same retarded and advanced Green’s functions as computed from the old prescription of Ref. .333 For more complicated, composite operators, such as the stress-energy tensor, we expect there may be additional complications arising from contact terms. In particular, we believe that our boundary conditions will continue to produce the Schwinger-Keldysh propagators. However, the relation between $`G_R`$ and $`f_k`$ in Eq. (26) and the relation between $`G_R`$ and $`G_{ij}`$ in Eqs. (11a)–(11d) may change by contact terms.

In order to obtain the Schwinger-Keldysh propagator with $`\sigma \beta /2`$, one can substitute the source $`\varphi _2(k)`$ in the boundary action with $`e^{(\sigma \beta /2)\omega }\varphi _2(k)`$. The interpretation of this rescaling of $`\varphi _2(k)`$ is not completely clear from the gravity point of view. with $`\sigma =0`$.

## 4 Natural boundary conditions at zero temperature

In zero-temperature field theory one can perform a Wick rotation from Euclidean space to Minkowski space. We now show that the “natural” boundary condition at the horizon proposed in the previous section is consistent with this Wick rotation. Consider the zero temperature limit of aAdS space, where we recover a scalar traveling in the Poincare patch of pure $`AdS_5`$. In Euclidean signature, the behavior of the scalar field is described by

$$f_k^E(z)=\frac{z^2K_\nu (kz)}{ϵ^2K_\nu (kϵ)}$$
(29)
where $`\nu =\sqrt{4+m^2R^2}`$, $`k=\sqrt{\omega ^2+(k^1)^2+\mathrm{}}`$, and $`z=0`$ corresponds to the boundary of $`AdS_5`$.444 Our metric is the usual
$$ds^2=(\pm dt^2+d\stackrel{}{x}^2+dz^2)/z^2.$$
The analytic continuation of the Bessel type function $`K_\nu `$ to Lorentzian signature is the first Hankel function $`H_\nu ^{(1)}`$ and one finds that in Lorentzian signature

$$f_k(z)=\frac{z^2H_\nu ^{(1)}(qz)}{ϵ^2H_\nu ^{(1)}(qϵ)}$$
(30)
where $`q=\sqrt{\omega ^2(k^1)^2\mathrm{}}`$. When multiplied by $`e^{i\omega t}`$, for large $`z`$, $`f_k(z)`$ corresponds to a wave traveling away from the boundary for $`\omega >0`$ while for $`\omega <0`$, the wave travels toward the boundary. These boundary conditions are precisely the zero temperature limit of our “natural” boundary conditions.

The boundary conditions on the Feynman propagator are the same conditions that result from an analytic continuation of the Euclidean Green’s function. This zero temperature calculation tells us that at least at zero temperature, the right boundary conditions are purely outgoing from the boundary for positive frequency and purely ingoing at the boundary for negative frequency modes.

Generalizing now to finite temperature, we are asserting that the boundary conditions should remain the same but we should use the Kruskal coordinates to define them and not the original gauge theory time $`t`$.

## Acknowledgments

The authors thank Oliver DeWolfe, Jim Hartle, Gary Horowitz, Thomas Hertog, Joe Polchinski, Andrei Starinets, Anastasia Volovich, and Johannes Walcher for discussions. C. H. was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY99-07949. D. T. S. was supported, in part, by DOE grant No. DOE-ER-41132 and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.


format: text

text:
# Determining the Mass of Supersymmetric Scalars at the CLIC Multi-TeV 𝑒⁺𝑒⁻ Collider

## 1 Introduction

A multi-TeV $`e^+e^{}`$ linear collider (LC) is expected to complete the investigation of the SUSY particle spectrum, in the case Supersymmetry is realised in nature and the particle partners exhibit a mass spectrum extending up to 1 TeV, and beyond. In this case, precise determinations of the masses and widths of these particles will represent a central part of the collider physics programme. Sets of SUSY benchmarks have recently been proposed, which take into account constraints from direct searches at Lep-2 and other colliders and data from $`bs\gamma `$ and cosmology . Most of these benchmarks have the masses of the heaviest sparticles beyond the reach of the Lhc and of a TeV-class $`e^+e^{}`$ linear collider. The Lhc is expected to reveal the existence of Supersymmetry and perform a study of the sparticle properties in the vast majority of conceivable scenarios and a 0.5-1.0 TeV $`e^+e^{}`$ collider can improve the accuracy in the study of the lightest SUSY states. However, higher energies are likely to be needed to access all the sparticles species and acquire the data necessary to clarify the nature of Supersymmetry breaking.

A first mapping of the potential of a 3-5 TeV $`e^+e^{}`$ collider, such as Clic , in comparison to the Lhc and to a lower energy $`e^+e^{}`$ collider was performed, based on a simple assumption on the minimum observable product of production cross section and decay branching fraction into well reconstructable final states . Beyond detection, it is important to assess the ability of Clic to perform accurate determinations of sparticle masses, widths and decay branching fractions, taking into account the details of beam-beam interactions and the resulting luminosity spectrum and accelerator-induced backgrounds . We study here the expected Clic accuracy on sfermion masses, using a realistic simulation. Results are presented for the Supersymmetric partner of the muon, $`\stackrel{~}{\mu _L}`$ and for the scalar top, $`\stackrel{~}{t_2}`$. Section 2 presents the benchmarks considered and the Clic parameters. There are two different techniques for the determination of the smuon mass: the analysis of the energy distribution of the resulting muon in the two body $`\stackrel{~}{\mu _L}`$ decay and the energy scan close the the production threshold. These are discussed in 3.1 and 3.2 respectively. In Section 4 we discuss the perspectives for extending the energy spectrum analysis to $`\stackrel{~}{t_2}`$ decays and Section 5 has the conclusions.

## 2 SUSY Benchmark and Simulation

The post-Lep CMSSM benchmark points E and H, proposed in , have been chosen for this study. Point E 111$`m_{1/2}`$ = 300, $`m_0`$ = 1500, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ = 10, $`sign(\mu )`$ = +, $`A`$ = 0 is representative of the focus region, characterised by heavy sleptons and squarks. The $`\stackrel{~}{\mu _L}^+\stackrel{~}{\mu _L}^{}`$ threshold is just accessible at $`\sqrt{s}=`$3 TeV. The gluino ($`M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$=697 GeV) being lighter than the squarks, decays such as $`\stackrel{~}{q}q\stackrel{~}{g}`$ are open for these parameters. It is interesting to observe that such inverted scenario, with the gluino lighter than the squarks, is also common to benchmarks inspired to effective field theories derived from strings . The mass of the LSP is 120 GeV and those of the heavier neutralinos are in the range 200-300 GeV. Point H 222$`m_{1/2}`$ = 1500, $`m_0`$ = 419, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ = 20, $`sign(\mu )`$ = +, $`A`$ = 0 is located at the end-point of the coannihilation tail at large $`m_{1/2}`$ and moderate $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. The heavy sparticle spectrum makes this a highly problematic point at the Lhc. However, at $`\sqrt{s}`$=3 TeV, smuons are accessible in $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions and their masses can be determined through the muon energy distribution. The LSP mass, $`M_{\chi _1^0}`$, is 665 GeV. Events have been simulated using the Pythia 6.2 Monte Carlo generator. Parameters have been tuned to reproduce sparticles masses and widths to a good accuracy. Initial state radiation (ISR) has been included. Muon energy distributions have been obtained using full Geant-3 simulation of a discrete silicon tracker consisting of twelve layers located from 3.5 cm up to 180 cm in radius and a solenoidal magnetic field $`B`$ of either 4 or 6 T. Backgrounds and $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$ decays have been processed using the Simdet parametric simulation , describing the detector response determined using Geant. The Clic luminosity spectrum has been folded to the production cross sections using the Calypso interface. $`\gamma \gamma \mathrm{hadrons}`$ and parallel muon backgrounds have been overlayed to the generated signal and background events for the smuon study.

## 3 Muon Mass Determination

The study has been performed for $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\mu _L}\stackrel{~}{\mu _L}\mu ^+\chi _1^0\mu ^{}\chi _1^0`$. The three main sources of background, also leading to two muons plus missing energy, are i) $`e^+e^{}W^+W^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}\nu _\mu \overline{\nu }_\mu `$, ii) $`e^+e^{}W^+W^{}\overline{\nu }\nu \mu ^+\mu ^{}\nu _\mu \overline{\nu }_\mu \nu _e\overline{\nu }_e`$ and iii) $`e^+e^{}\chi _1\chi _2,\chi _2\chi _2\mu ^+\mu ^{}\nu \overline{\nu }\chi _0\chi _0`$. These backgrounds can be suppressed by requiring central production and decay kinematics compatible with those characteristic of smuon pair production. A multi-dimensional discriminant based on $`M_{\mu \mu }`$, $`M_{recoil}`$, $`E_{missing}`$, $`\mu \mu `$ Acolinearity, $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _{Thrust}|`$, $`E_t`$ and $`E_{hem}`$ has been applied. The signal efficiency is flat with the muon energy.

### 3.1 The Energy Distribution method

If the centre-of-mass energy, $`\sqrt{s}`$, is significantly larger than twice the sparticle mass, $`M_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}`$, this can be determined by an analysis of the energy spectrum of the muon, emitted in the two-body $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }\chi _1^0\mu `$ decay (see Figure 1). The two end-points, $`E_{min}`$ and $`E_{max}`$, of the spectrum are related to the $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ and $`\chi _1^0`$ masses and to the $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ boost by:

$$E_{max/min}=\frac{M_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}}{2}(1\frac{M_{\chi _1^0}^2}{M_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}^2})\times (1\pm \sqrt{1\frac{M_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}^2}{E_{beam}^2}})$$
(1)
from which either the smuon mass $`M_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}`$ can be extracted, if $`M_{\chi _1^0}`$ is already known, or both masses can be simultaneously fitted.

This technique, already considered for the determination of squark masses , has been extended also to sleptons for the Lhc and a TeV-class LC . It is interesting to consider it here also for its implications on the required momentum resolution in the detector. Two values of the solenoidal magnetic field $`B=`$ 4 and 6 T have been tested, corresponding to momentum resolutions $`\delta p/p^2`$ of $`4.5\times 10^5`$ and $`3.0\times 10^5`$ GeV-1 respectively. No appreciable difference on the resulting mass accuracy has been observed from these two momentum resolution, since the dominant smearing is due to beamstrahlung. In fact, at Clic, the main issue is the significant beamstrahlung smearing of the luminosity spectrum, and thus of the effective $`E_{beam}`$ value. The corresponding effect has been estimated by using both a perfectly well known and constant beam energy and that corresponding to the baseline Clic parameters at a nominal $`\sqrt{s}`$=3 TeV. Results are summarised in Table 2.

The smuon mass has been extracted by a $`\chi ^2`$ fit to the muon energy spectrum by fixing $`M_{\chi _1^0}`$ to its nominal value (see Table 2. The fit has been also repeated leaving both masses free and performing a simultaneous two-parameter fit. The results are $`M_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}=(1145\pm 25)`$ GeV and $`M_{\chi _1^0}=(652\pm 22)`$ GeV (see Figure 1).

### 3.2 The Threshold Scan method

An alternative method to determine the $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ mass is an energy scan of the rise of the $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\mu }^+\stackrel{~}{\mu }^{}`$ cross section, close to its kinematical threshold. It has been shown that an optimal scan consists of just two energy points, sharing the total integrated luminosity in equal fractions and chosen at locations optimising the sensitivities to the $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ width and mass respectively . Including the beamstrahlung effect, induces a shift of the positions of the maxima in mass sensitivity towards higher nominal $`\sqrt{s}`$ energies. For benchmark point E, the cross section at $`\sqrt{s}`$=3 TeV is too small for an accurate measurement. Higher centre-of-mass energy, 4 TeV, and polarised beams need to be considered. By properly choosing the beam polarisation, not only the pair production cross sections are increased but also their sensitivity to the smuon masses. Results are summarised in Table 3.

## 4 Scalar Top Analysis

In the context of the benchmark point E, the process $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{t_1}\stackrel{~}{t_1}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{t_2}\stackrel{~}{t_2}`$ followed by the decay $`\stackrel{~}{t_{1.2}}t\stackrel{~}{g}`$ offers a possibility to determine the scalar top mass based on the reconstructed top energy only, following a procedure similar to that adopted for the smuon mass. The same relation as Eq. 1 between the top energy spectrum endpoints and the masses and $`\sqrt{s}`$ energy holds in this case, with $`M_{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$ and $`M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ replacing $`M_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}`$ and $`M_{\chi _1^0}`$ respectively. By determining the endpoints of the top quark energy spectrum produced in $`\stackrel{~}{t}t\stackrel{~}{g}`$, the masses of the stop and the gluino can be extracted. However, here the situation is complicated by the fact that top quarks may also be produced in $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ decays or other $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$ decays, such as $`\stackrel{~}{t}t\chi ^0`$. Figure 2 shows the distribution of the energy of top quarks produced in $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{t_2}\stackrel{~}{t_2}`$ events. Although the expected endpoints are diluted, it is still possible to extract $`M_{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$ from the shape of the top energy spectrum.

A $`\chi ^2`$ fit, including the contributions from other top sources in signal events, indicates that a relative accuracy $`\delta M_{t_2}/M_{t_2}=\pm `$7.5% can be achieved with 3 ab-1, without including beamstrahlung effects.

## 5 Conclusions

A preliminary study of sfermion reconstruction at the Clic multi-TeV collider has shown that smuon masses can be measured with typical accuracies of 1.3-3.0 % for $`=1`$ ab-1 for two benchmark points, using either the muon energy technique, when $`\sqrt{s}>>2\times M_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}`$, or a threshold scan. The accuracy of the threshold scans is significantly enhanced by the availability of polarised beams. The energy spectrum technique has also been extended to the scalar top in the case when the decay $`\stackrel{~}{t_2}t\stackrel{~}{g}`$ is kinematically allowed.

We are grateful to G. Blair, A. De Roeck, J. Ellis, S. Kraml and L. Pape for contributions.


text:
# Dark energy effects on the Lyman-𝛼 forest

## 1 Introduction

Observed cosmic microwave background anisotropies convincingly demonstrate that the universe is spatially flat (de Bernardis et al. 2002; Netterfield et al. 2002; Pryke et al. 2002). The luminosity-distance relation, as determined from high redshift type Ia Supernovae (Garnavich et al. 1998; Riess et al. 1998; Perlmutter et al. 1999), requires a spatially flat universe to be currently dominated by some type of dark energy, which is nearly homogeneous and has negative pressure, such as for example a cosmological constant. Several independent lines of argument also favour a low-density, vacuum-energy dominated universe, for example the abundance of clusters (Bahcall et al. 2003) and their X-ray properties (Allen et al. 2002), the clustering of galaxies (Efstathiou et al. 2002; Verde et al. 2002), estimates of the age of the universe and the current value of the Hubble parameter.

The energy density associated with the cosmological constant may actually decay in time. Such quintessence models (e.g. Caldwell et al. 1998; henceforth QCDM models) have an equation of state $`p=w\rho `$, with $`w<1/3`$, where $`w=1`$ corresponds to the more familiar cosmological constant model. Recently, a number of observational tests have been proposed to measure $`w`$ and its redshift dependence (Kujat et al. 2001; Wang & Garnavich 2001; Matsubara & Szalay 2002; Gerke & Efstathiou 2002).

In this Letter we focus on the prospects of using the Lyman-$`\alpha `$ forest to constrain $`w`$. The Lyman-$`\alpha `$ forest region in quasar (QSO) spectra contains hundreds of hydrogen Lyman-$`\alpha `$ absorption lines (see Rauch 1998 for a review), most of which are produced by small density fluctuations in the intervening intergalactic medium (Cen et al. 1994; Bi & Davidsen 1997, hereafter BD97). Since these structures are still reasonably linear, they are good probes of the underlying large-scale matter distribution, and hence are sensitive to the cosmological model. For example, Hui et al. (1999) and McDonald (2001) suggested to apply the Alcock-Paczinski test (Alcock & Paczinski 1979) to estimate the cosmological constant and Croft et al. (2002) constrained the dark matter power spectrum on large scales. The Lyman-$`\alpha `$ forest is promising in that it can be used over a larger redshift range than most other potential probes of $`w`$.

Here we use semi-analytical models of the Lyman-$`\alpha `$ forest, which have been shown to be successful in reproducing reasonably well most of its observed properties, such as the column density distribution function, the line-widths distribution and the number of lines per unit redshift (BD97; Viel et al. 2002a, 2002b; Roy Choudury et al. 2001). Hydrodynamical simulations are required for more accurate predictions on smaller scales (e.g. Theuns et al. 1998, 2002; Davé et al. 1999; Bryan et al. 1999). We examine several statistics of the flux spectrum, such as the probability distribution function of the optical depth, the optical depth power spectrum, the number of underdense regions per unit redshift and the cross-correlation coefficient of spectra of quasar pairs. The first two statistics are not directly observable but they can be recovered from the flux distribution by looking at higher order lines through pixel optical depths techniques (Sect. 3). Section 2 briefly reviews the properties of quintessence models and describes our simulation techniques. Section 3 contains our results and a brief discussion.

## 2 Simulations of Lyman-$`\alpha `$ spectra in quintessence models

The quintessence parameter $`w`$ influences the shape of the linear matter power spectrum $`P(k,z)k^n𝒯^2(k,z)D^2(z)`$, the linear growth factor of density perturbations $`D(z)`$ and the Hubble parameter $`H(z)`$. Here $`k`$ is the wavenumber, $`𝒯`$ the transfer function and $`n`$ the spectral index. Useful expressions for the growth factor of density perturbations and of linear peculiar velocities can be found in Lahav et al. (1991), for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM, and in Wang & Steinhardt (1998), for QCDM. The Hubble parameter at redshift $`z`$ is $`H(z)=H_0\left[\mathrm{\Omega }_m(1+z)^3+\mathrm{\Omega }_k(1+z)^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_{DE}(1+z)^{3+3w}\right]^{1/2}`$, with $`H_0=100h`$ km s-1 the present-day Hubble parameter and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k=1\mathrm{\Omega }_m\mathrm{\Omega }_{DE}`$. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{DE}`$ represents the energy density of the cosmological constant ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) or the quintessence ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q`$), in units of the critical density.

In Figure 1 we plot $`𝒯(k,z)`$, $`D(z)`$ and the Hubble parameter $`H(z)`$, for several values of $`w`$, here assumed to be constant in time, for simplicity, using the fits of Ma et al. (1999). If we compare the transfer function of QCDM and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM at $`z=2`$ one can see that there are differences only on very large scales, $`k\stackrel{<}{}0.01h`$ Mpc-1. The Hubble parameter in QCDM models with $`w=0.8`$, $`0.6`$ and $`0.4`$ differs by 6, 14 and 25 per cent at redshifts $`z0.75`$, $`z1`$ and $`z1.2`$ from those of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model (panel b). For those values of $`w`$, the growth factors $`D(z)`$ (panel c) at $`z2`$ are larger than for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model by 5, 15 and 30 per cent respectively.

The semi-analytical model we use to generate Lyman-$`\alpha `$ forest spectra is based on the approximations introduced by Bi and collaborators (BD97; see Viel et al. (2002a) for more details). The basic assumption is that the low-column density Ly$`\alpha `$ forest is produced by smooth fluctuations in the intergalactic medium (IGM), which arise as a result of gravitational growth of perturbations (e.g. Schaye 2001). Briefly, we start by generating correlated Gaussian random fields to represent the linear density and peculiar velocity dark matter fields along a sight-line, for a given linear matter power spectrum. The linear density perturbations in the IGM $`\delta _0^{\mathrm{IGM}}(𝐱,z)`$ are related to those in the underlying dark matter by a convolution, $`\delta _0^{\mathrm{IGM}}(𝐤,z)=W_{\mathrm{IGM}}(k,z)\delta _0^{\mathrm{DM}}(𝐤,z)`$. For the smoothing kernel $`W`$ we use the Gaussian filter $`W_{IGM}=\mathrm{exp}(k/k_f)^2`$ (Gnedin et al. 2002), which is a good approximation to model the effects of gas pressure in the linear regime. The smoothing scale $`k_f`$ is related to the Jeans length in a way which depends on the thermal history of the IGM (Gnedin & Hui 1998; Matarrese & Mohayaee 2002).

To account for the fact that the IGM which produces most of the Lyman-$`\alpha `$ forest is actually mildly non-linear, we follow BD97 and adopt a simple lognormal model (Coles & Jones 1991) for the IGM local density. This is a strong assumption but we think that at these redshift and for the large scale properties investigated here the log-normal model can be a good approximation to the more accurate hydro-dynamical simulations. We assume the gas to be in photoionization equilibrium with an imposed uniform UV-background, which we scale so that the mock spectra have the same effective optical depth $`\tau _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ as observed (see Kim et al. 2002 and Bernardi et al. 2002, for recent determinations of $`\tau _{eff}(z)`$). We use the values of Schaye et al. (2000) for the normalization $`T_0`$ and slope $`\gamma `$ of the temperature-density relation, $`T=T_0(\rho /\rho )^{\gamma 1}`$, in the IGM. Finally, we artificially broaden the spectra to a resolution of FWHM = 6.6 km s-1 to mimic high quality VLT/UVES or Keck/HIRES spectra, and add Gaussian noise with signal to noise of 50 (see e.g. Theuns et al. 2000 for more details). Spectra generated with this procedure have been shown to produce flux probability and line-width distribution functions in reasonable agreement with observations (BD97).

We will compare the Lyman-$`\alpha `$ forest in a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmological model with three different QCDM models, with $`w=0.4,0.6,0.8`$, respectively. For all of these models, we assume that the cosmological parameters are $`\sigma _8=0.7,\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3,h=0.67,\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.020,\mathrm{\Omega }_{DE}=0.7`$. We simulate 10 different randomly generated spectra, with the same set of random phases for each spectrum, in the redshift range $`1.8<z<2.2`$ for each model, assuming $`\tau _{eff}=0.15`$ (Kim et al. 2002), $`\gamma =1.3`$ and $`T_0=10^{4.1}`$ K. The filtering scale is $`k_f1.7k_J`$ (with $`k_J`$ the Jeans wave-number), which is a reasonable estimate if HI reionization takes place at $`z7`$ (Gnedin & Hui 1998). The spectra are approximately $`40,000`$ km s-1 long. In addition, we simulate spectra of QSO pairs with a given angular separation in the range 10–90 arcsec, using the procedure described in Viel et al. (2002a). The cross-correlation coefficient spectra of pairs is estimated using the definition of Viel et al. (2002a) from a set of 8 pairs for each separation. In panel d) of Figure 1 we show, for a qualitative comparison, a chunk of two simulated spectra for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM and QCDM, with $`w=0.4`$, model. We have decided to focus our analysis around $`z2`$ in view of a comparison with observations which will be made in a future work.

## 3 Results

In this section we will study the effects of dark energy on the simulated spectra. The differences between the QCDM and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model, which could be tested through Lyman-$`\alpha `$ absorptions, are the following: the linear dark matter power spectrum $`P(k,z)`$; the evolution of the cosmological parameters and in particular of the Hubble parameter $`H(z)`$; the growth factors $`D(z)`$ of the linear density perturbations.

The simulated Lyman-$`\alpha `$ flux power spectrum agrees reasonably well with the linear dark matter power spectrum at large scales, while on smaller scales non-linear effects, thermal broadening and noise can produce differences. This is roughly true even if we do not correct for redshift-space distortions and compare directly the flux power spectrum of simulated absorption spectra and the linear dark matter power spectrum. From Figure 1 (panel a) we can see that the QCDM transfer function differs from the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM one only on scales larger than 100 comoving Mpc. Such scales are comparable to the extent of the Lyman-$`\alpha `$ forest region in a QSO spectrum, and hence this signature of $`w1`$ would be difficult to detect since it would require a large number of spectra to estimate the power on these scales. More importantly, in high resolution spectra every attempt to recover the power spectrum on scales larger than 10 comoving Mpc is challenging due to the continuum fitting uncertainties (Croft et al. 1999).

A second difference between QCDM and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM is the different evolution of the cosmological parameters, such as $`H(z)`$. We have explored the effect of a different Hubble parameter and different growth factors values at redshift $`z=2`$ on the simulated Lyman-$`\alpha `$ optical depth, by fixing the remaining parameters. The effect is clear: a larger Hubble parameter produces in general a broader optical depth distribution with the peak shifted to lower values. In fact, with a higher value of the Hubble parameter, the same real-space absorber intersected by the sight-line will affect a larger region of the redshift-space spectrum.

In the same way, we explore the effect of different growth factors. If the growth factor is increased, the (non-linear) log-normal mapping acts in such a way that typically the low-density regions become less dense and the high-density regions more dense. Thus, with a larger growth factor, as the one predicted for QCDM models compared to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM ones (Figure 1, panel c), the simulated optical depth shifts to smaller values and its probability distribution function (pdf) becomes broader. This effect can be seen also in the simulated flux in panel d) of Figure 1, for example at $`6000`$ km s-1 this is particularly evident.

Our first conclusion is that a larger growth factor produces the same effect of a higher value of the Hubble parameter: a shift of the simulated Lyman-$`\alpha `$ optical depth to smaller values and a broader distribution, if the other parameters remain fixed.

To see these effects combined together, we plot in panel a) of Figure 2 the probability distribution function of the simulated optical depth for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM (dot-dashed line), QCDM with $`w=0.4`$ (continuous line), $`w=0.6`$ (dotted line) and $`w=0.8`$ (dashed line). We choose to plot the probability distribution function also for $`\tau `$ values smaller than those which can actually be recovered by standard techniques to better appreciate the differences between cosmological models. We can see that the simulated optical depth pdf results in different distributions for the four cosmological models. Since the flux is the observed quantity, the inferred optical depth can be trusted only in the range $`1.6<\text{ }\mathrm{log}(\tau )<\text{ }0.5`$ (corresponding to fluxes in the range 0.04-0.97). With a more sophisticated analysis, based on pixel optical depth techniques, this range can be considerably extended (Aguirre et al. 2002 and references therein). In panel b) of Figure 2 we plot the optical depth power spectrum for the QCDM and the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model, with Poissonian error bars. We can see that on scales $`\mathrm{log}k(\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1)<1.5`$ the four cosmological models are distinguishable: while the shape is very similar, the normalization is different even if we choose the same value for $`\tau _{eff}`$. This is the effect of different amounts of non linearity in the four cosmological models, which influences the normalization of the curves.

In Figure 3 we plot two more observational quantities: the number of underdense regions per unit redshift (panel a) and the cross-correlation coefficient $`\chi `$ estimated from the spectra of QSO pairs at different separations (panel b). The definition of underdense region adopted here is the following: if we are searching for an underdense region of size $`\mathrm{\Delta }v`$, we preliminarily smooth the simulated spectra on this scale (top-hat smoothing) and then we define as an underdensity a region for which the flux is larger than the mean flux at that redshift, estimated through $`\tau _{eff}`$. One can see that the predicted number of underdense regions per unit redshift is different for the four cosmological models. The number of underdense regions of intermediate sizes, between 700 km s-1 and 2700 km s-1, which correspond to sizes in the range 10-40 comoving Mpc in a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM universe, is larger in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model than in the QCDM ones. This is due to the combined effects of a different Hubble parameters and a different growth factor for density perturbations, as we saw in panel a) of Figure 2, which produce more rarefied underdense region and denser high density regions in QCDM models than in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM models. In particular, we have found that the number of underdense regions of size 2500 km s-1 for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM can be a factor of 2 and 1.5 larger than in QCDM model with $`w=0.4`$ and $`w=0.8`$ at $`z=2`$, respectively.

The cross-correlation coefficient $`\chi `$ is plotted in panel b) of Figure 3, this number quantifies the amount of ‘coherence’ in the transverse direction between spectra of QSO pairs. The information contained in the transverse direction could be powerful and has already been analysed in the past (Miralda-Escudé et al. 1996; Viel et al. 2002a). This test is in a sense similar to the more sophisticated Alcock-Paczinski test (Hui et al. 1999; McDonald & Miralda-Escudé 1999; McDonald 2001) and aims at discriminating between different cosmological models. Here, we have simulated 8 QSO pairs at $`z2`$ for five separations (10, 30, 50, 70 and 90 arcsec) and computed the mean value and the error of the mean for this coefficient at each separation. The four models are very similar and the error bars overlap. Only at angular scales $`<\text{ }20`$ arcsec there are some differences between the models. However, the number of pairs considered here is marginally sufficient to discriminate between a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model and a QCDM with $`w=0.4`$. We have estimated that 25 pairs with these small separations are needed to distinguish between the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model and a QCDM with $`w=0.6`$ at a 3$`\sigma `$ level.

Dark energy in the form of quintessence in the Lyman-$`\alpha `$ forest seems to be not easily distinguishable from a cosmological constant. Even if the thermal state of the IGM is completely known, the uncertainties on the values of the baryon fraction (Burles et al. 2001) and especially on the ionization parameter (Scott et al. 2000), are so large that it would be difficult to recover the evolution of $`H(z)`$. We have found that a QCDM model with $`w=0.4`$ requires an ionization parameter a factor of 3 lower than in a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model (while for $`w=0.8`$ it is a factor of 1.25 lower), in order to match observed $`\tau _{eff}`$. Uncertainties on the value of $`\tau _{eff}`$ are of the order of 40%, but in the near future, with larger data set available, this uncertainty will become significantly smaller. In principle, an accurate determination of $`\tau _{eff}`$, with a precision of $`1020\%`$ could already be used to discriminate between QCDM with $`w=0.4`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM models, since the present uncertainties on the ionization parameter are of the order of 50%. Statistics based on the optical depth like the pdf or the power spectrum, instead of the flux, can be much more useful in discriminating between different cosmological models. This is due to the fact that the optical depth is very sensitive to the amount of non-linearity introduced in the different cosmological models. However, in order to do that, it will be necessary to use pixel optical depth techniques, using higher order Lyman lines, to get reliable estimates of the optical depths both in saturated and in high transmissivity regions.

In summary, we have presented a preliminary analysis of simulated spectra in QCDM models and in a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model based on semi-analytical models. The main differences can be found in the different evolution of $`H(z)`$ and of the linear growth factor of density perturbations $`D(z)`$. Both these effects act in a similar way. If we fix the remaining parameters and compare the probability distribution function of Lyman-$`\alpha `$ optical depth between QCDM and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM we have found that the distribution in the QCDM model is broader than in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM case. This means that in general high transmission regions are more rarefied and high density regions are denser in QCDM than in a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM universe. The optical depth power spectrum is different on intermediate and large scales, even if the normalization $`\tau _{eff}`$ is the same, because of the different amounts of non linearity predicted for the models. Detecting the underdense regions could be promising. In fact, we have found that the number of intermediate size underdense regions, with sizes of the order of 10 comoving Mpc, is larger in a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model than in QCDM ones. Another statistics we have proposed concerns the the cross-correlation coefficient between the spectra of QSO pairs. However, in this case, the differences can be appreciated only for separations smaller than 20 arcsec and the number of pairs should be larger than 20 to distinguish between QCDM and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmological models at a 3$`\sigma `$ level.

## Acknowledgments

We thank T.-S. Kim and M. Haehnelt for useful discussions. This work was partially supported by the European Community Research and Training Network ‘The Physics of the Intergalactic Medium’ and NSF CAREER grant AST-0094335. DM was supported by PPARC grant RG28936. TT thanks PPARC for the award of an Advanced Fellowship.


text:
# Invariance quantum group of the fermionic oscillator

## Abstract

The fermionic oscillator defined by the algebraic relations $`cc^{}+c^{}c=1`$ and $`c^2=0`$ admits the homogeneous group $`O(2)`$ as its invariance group. We show that, the structure of the inhomogeneous invariance group of this oscillator is a quantum group.

Quantum field theory which describes the ultimate behavior of elementary particles and fields in physics fundamentally depends on the concepts of the bosonic oscillator described by the algebraic relation

$`aa^{}a^{}a=1`$ (1)
and the fermionic oscillator described by the algebraic relations

$`cc^{}+c^{}c=1`$ (2)
$`c^2=0.`$ (3)
The algebra of the bosonic oscillator $`(1)`$ is invariant under the inhomogeneous symplectic group $`ISp(2,R)`$ which transforms $`a`$, $`a^{}`$ and 1 into each other.The homogenous part of this group which just transforms $`a`$, $`a^{}`$ into each other is $`Sp(2,R)`$ $`SU(1,1)`$. For the fermionic oscillator $`(2)`$ we should like to remark the importance of the relation $`c^2=0.`$ Fermions satisfy the Pauli Exclusion Principle, the two identical fermions can not occupy the same state. Thus $`c^2=0`$. The algebra $`(2)`$ describes the simplest nontrivial quantum mechanical system. In this sense it is the most fundamental. Although the bosonic oscillator $`(1)`$ has a classical limit in which it reduces to the harmonic oscillator, the fermionic oscillator $`(2)`$ has no classical analogue. Thus a thorough understanding of all its properties is important. One important property of the algebra $`(2)`$ is that it does not admit a q-deformation $`[14]`$. Another is that although it is invariant under the orthogonal group $`O(2)`$ which transforms $`c`$ and $`c^{}`$ into each other there is no inhomogeneous classical Lie group which transforms $`c,c^{}`$ and $`1`$ into each other. In this paper we construct a quantum group $`[58]`$ which achieves this purpose. We show that the structure of the inhomogeneous invariance group of the fermionic oscillator is a quantum group, that is, the matrix elements of the transformation matrix which transforms $`c,`$ $`c^{}`$ and $`1`$ into each other belong to a noncommutative Hopf algebra $`[58]`$ where the coproduct is given by the matrix product. We will develop the R-matrix formulation of this quantum group and show that the operators generating this quantum group have a two dimensional representation which we explicitly construct. The representation matrices depend on five parameters. We finally present a discussion of our results.

To show that the structure of the inhomogeneous invariance ‘group’ of the fermionic oscillator is a quantum group, we consider a $`3\times 3`$ matrix A whose elements belong to an algebra $`A`$. We form the column matrix

$`𝐜=\left[\begin{array}{c}c\\ c^{}\\ 1\end{array}\right]`$ (7)
and assume that the action of the matrix A on $`c`$ is given by

$`𝐜^{^{}}=A\stackrel{}{}𝐜`$ (8)
We assume that matrix A is of the form

$`A=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}\alpha & \beta & \gamma \\ \beta ^{}& \alpha ^{}& \gamma ^{}\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right]`$ (12)
in accordance with the general form of inhomogeneous transformations of $`c`$ and $`c^{}`$ so that the transformed fermion algebra generators in (4) are explicitly given by

$`c^{^{}}=\alpha c+\beta c^{}+\gamma 1`$ (13)
$`c^{^{}}=\alpha ^{}c^{}+\beta ^{}c+\gamma ^{}1.`$ (14)
If $`\alpha ,`$ $`\beta ,\gamma `$ are taken as complex numbers the invariance of the fermion algebra $`(2)`$ requires that $`\alpha =\beta =0,`$ $`\alpha =e^{i\rho }`$ or $`\gamma `$ $`=\alpha =0`$ $`,\beta =e^{i\rho }`$ giving the homogeneous group $`O(2)`$. If we assume that $`\alpha ,`$ $`\beta ,`$ $`\gamma `$ and their hermitian conjugates can form a noncommutative algebra, the conditions that $`𝐜^{^{}}`$ satisfies the relations $`(2)`$ give rise to $`12`$ (real) relations. It is known that when some nonlinear completely integrable systems are quantized the Lie group which describes the symmetries of the system has also to be quantized to yield a Hopf algebra. We thus look for a Hopf algebra structure for $`A`$. In order to accomplish this, these $`12`$ relations must be supplemented by $`5`$ additional relations so that the $`17`$ defining relations of the algebra $`A`$ are given by

$`\alpha \alpha ^{}=\alpha ^{}\alpha `$ (15)
$`\beta \beta ^{}=\beta ^{}\beta `$ (16)
$`\gamma \gamma ^{}+\gamma ^{}\gamma =1\alpha ^{}\alpha \beta ^{}\beta `$ (17)
$`\alpha \beta =\beta \alpha `$ (18)
$`\alpha \beta ^{}=\beta ^{}\alpha `$ (19)
$`\gamma ^2=\alpha \beta `$ (20)
$`\alpha \gamma =\gamma \alpha `$ (21)
$`\alpha \gamma ^{}=\gamma ^{}\alpha `$ (22)
$`\beta \gamma =\gamma \beta `$ (23)
$`\beta \gamma ^{}=\gamma ^{}\beta `$ (24)
plus the hermitian conjugates of $`(1218)`$. Note that $`\alpha ,`$ $`\alpha ^{},`$ $`\beta ,`$ $`\beta ^{},`$ $`1`$ commute among themselves. For the special case $`\alpha `$ $`=\beta =0,`$ $`\gamma ,`$ $`\gamma ^{}`$ and $`1`$ satisfy the fermion algebra. We find the Hopf algebra with the coproduct given by matrix multiplication

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(A)=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Delta }(\alpha )& \mathrm{\Delta }(\beta )& \mathrm{\Delta }(\gamma )\\ \mathrm{\Delta }(\beta ^{})& \mathrm{\Delta }(\alpha ^{})& \mathrm{\Delta }(\gamma ^{})\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right]=A\stackrel{}{}A,`$ (28)
the counit given by the unit matrix

$`ϵ(A)=I`$ (29)
and the antipode given by

$`S(A)=\delta ^1\left[\begin{array}{ccc}\alpha ^{}& \beta & \alpha ^{}\gamma +\beta \gamma ^{}\\ \beta ^{}& \alpha & \alpha \gamma ^{}+\beta ^{}\gamma \\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right]`$ (33)
where

$`\delta =\alpha \alpha ^{}\beta \beta ^{}`$ (34)
is a central element of the algebra.

The fermionic oscillator algebra $`(23)`$ can be written as a vector algebra

$`R𝐂_1𝐂_2=𝐂_2𝐂_1`$ (35)
where

$`𝐂_1𝐂_2=\left[\begin{array}{c}c^2\\ cc^{}\\ c\\ c^{}c\\ (c^{})^2\\ c^{}\\ c\\ c^{}\\ 1\end{array}\right],𝐂_2𝐂_1=\left[\begin{array}{c}c^2\\ c^{}c\\ c\\ cc^{}\\ (c^{})^2\\ c^{}\\ c\\ c^{}\\ 1\end{array}\right]`$ (54)
and the $`9\times 9`$ R-matrix is

$`R=\left[\begin{array}{ccccccccc}1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right].`$ (64)
The invariance of $`(23)`$ under the transformation $`(5)`$ implies that the matrix A satisfies

$`RA_1A_2=A_2A_1R.`$ (65)
Since the R-matrix satisfies the quantum Yang-Baxter equation then the matrix A whose entries satisfy $`(918)`$ defines a quantum matrix group.

The only irreducible representation of the fermion algebra $`(2)`$ is two dimensional and can be written in terms of the Pauli matrices

$`\begin{array}{cc}c=\frac{1}{2}(\sigma _1+i\sigma _2)=\sigma _+& \\ c^{}=\frac{1}{2}(\sigma _1i\sigma _2)=\sigma _{}.& \end{array}`$ (68)
The overall phase $`\rho `$ can be identified with the familiar $`SO(2)`$ group acting on $`c`$ by $`ce^{i\rho }c`$. Since for the special case $`\alpha =\beta =0`$ representations of the algebra $`A`$ given by $`(918)`$ must reduce to the representations of the fermion algebra $`(2)`$ we may deduce that, if representations of $`A`$ depend on a number of parameters which take special values for the case $`\alpha =\beta =0`$ then $`A`$ can only have a two dimensional irreducible representation. This representation is given by

$`\begin{array}{ccc}\alpha =\alpha _3\sigma _3& & \\ \beta =\beta _3\sigma _3& & \\ \gamma =\gamma _+\sigma _++\gamma _{}\sigma _{}& & \end{array}`$ (72)
where the complex numbers $`\alpha _3,`$ $`\beta _3,`$ $`\gamma _+,`$ $`\gamma _{_{}}`$ are chosen such that $`(918)`$ are satisfied

$`\begin{array}{c}\left|\alpha _3\right|^2+\left|\beta _3\right|^2+\left|\gamma _+\right|^2+\left|\gamma _{}\right|^2=1\\ \gamma _+\gamma _{}+\alpha _3\beta _3=0.\end{array}`$ (75)
A particular parametrization is given by

$`\begin{array}{c}\alpha _3=e^{i(\rho +\sigma )}\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\phi \\ \beta _3=e^{i(\rho \sigma )}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\phi \\ \gamma _+=e^{i(\rho +\tau )}\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\phi \\ \gamma _{}=e^{i(\rho \tau )}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\phi .\end{array}`$ (80)
Thus the fermionic inhomogeneous orthogonal quantum group $`FIO(2)`$ depends on $`5`$ angles. The fact that the parameters are all angles as well as $`(11)`$ shows that $`FIO(2)`$ is compact as compared to the bosonic invariance group $`ISp(2)`$ which has the same number of parameters but is noncompact. In contrast, the familiar inhomogeneous orthogonal group $`IO(2)`$ which is the Euclidean group in $`2`$ dimensions has $`3`$ parameters.

In physics, symmetries are important. Fundamental examples are the Lorentz invariance of special relativity and the rotational invariance of hydrogen atom. Until the 1980’s it was thought that when a physical system is quantized the classical group which describes the symmetries of the system remain intact. i.e it remains a classical group. When some nonlinear, completely integrable systems were quantized in the 80’s it was discovered that the group which describes the symmetries of the physical system has also to be quantized, namely the classical group which acts on the classical system has to change into a quantum group. In the simplest examples, the classical matrix with commuting elements has to turn into a matrix with noncommuting elements. Moreover the algebra generated by these elements has to satisfy the axioms of a Hopf algebra. The quantum groups discovered in this fashion have the property that in some limit they reduce to a classical group. A fermionic system, on the other hand, does not have any classical analogue. By showing that the ’inhomogeneous invariance group’ of the fermionic oscillator is not a classical group but a quantum group, we have remotivated the introduction of quantum groups into field theory.

REFERENCES

1 Ws Chung, Internatıonal Journal of Theoretical Journal of Theoretical Physics 33, 1611 (1994).

2 A. Solomon, R. McDermot, J. Phys.A: Math. Gen 27, 2619 (1994).

3 Ws Chung, Prog. Theor. Physics 95, 3, (1996).

4 An-Min Wang, Si-Cong Jing and Tu-Nan Ruan, Il Nuovo Cımento 107A, 9 (1994).

5 L.D. Faddeev, N.Y. Reshetikhin, and L.A. Takhtajan, Algebraic AnalysisM 1, 129 (1988).

6 M. Jimbo, Lett. Math. Phys. 11, 247 (1986).

7 V.G.Drinfeld, Proc. Int. Congr. Math., Berkeley 1, 798 (1986).

8 S.L. Woronowicz, Commun. Math. Phys. 111, 613 (1987).