text:
# Diamonds’s Temperature: Unruh effect for bounded trajectories and thermal time hypothesis

## 1 Introduction

This work has two motivations. First, to study the Unruh effect? for an observer with a finite lifetime. Second, to probe the thermal time hypothesis?. The Unruh effect is the theoretical observation that the vacuum state $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of a quantum field theory on Minkowski spacetime looks like a thermal equilibrium state for an uniformly accelerated observer with acceleration $`a`$. The observed temperature is the Davis-Unruh temperature $`T_U=\mathrm{}a/2\pi k_bc`$, and is closely related to Hawking’s black hole temperature ($`c`$ is the speed of light, $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`k_b`$ are the Planck and Boltzmann constants.)

There exist many derivations of the Unruh effect.?,? One generally assumes that the observer moves over along an infinite worldine of constant acceleration. A model detector moving on this world line and interacting with the vacuum state of the field becomes excited and reaches a thermal state. For a free field, this can be computed integrating the two-point functions along the infinite trajectory. Alternatively, one can consider the region causally connected to the world line. This region is the Rindler wedge $`W`$. A quantization scheme for the field restricted to $`W`$ leads to the definition of particle states. The conventional vacuum $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a thermal distribution state of these particle. Another approach is based on Bisognano-Wichman theorem?,?,? : World lines of uniformly accelerated observers in $`W`$, parametrized by proper time, are orbits of the action of a one-parameter group, which can be interpreted as the time flow of the accelerated observers. The vacuum state $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a KMS state with temperature $`T_U`$, with respect to this time flow, over the algebra of the local observables in $`W`$. Intuitively, the reason the accelerated observer does not see a pure state can be viewed as related to the fact that he has no access to part of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Each observer instantaneity surface is cut into two parts by the edge of the wedge. The degrees of freedom of the field on the other side of the edge are inaccessible to the observer. Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ has vacuum correlations across the edge, the two sets of degrees of freedom on the two sides of the edge are entangled. The restriction of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to the edge interior, therefore, fails to be pure a state.

Doubts have been raised on the universality of the Unruh effect, for instance in Ref.\[?\]. One of the sources of the doubts is that most derivations of the effect consider infinite trajectories, while the trajectories of realistic detectors have a beginning and an end. In our opinion, the theoretical support for the Unruh effect is rather robust, and these doubts do not have much consistency. Nonetheless, the issue of observers with finite lifetime is interesting. The region causally connected to a finite trajectory is far smaller than $`W`$. Typically, it is the intersection of the future of the beginning point of the trajectory with the past of its end point. Such a region is called a “diamond”. In suitable Lorentz coordinates $`x^\mu =(x^0,\stackrel{}{x})`$, any diamond can be represented as the region $`D_L`$, with $`L>0`$, defined by

$$|x^0|+|\stackrel{}{x}|<L.$$
(1)
$`𝒯=2L`$ is the lifetime of the observer if he moves inertially. In a sense, only the finite region $`D_L`$ can take part in the thermalization process. More precisely, the observer has access only to the degrees of freedom of the field that lie within $`|\stackrel{}{x}|<L`$ on the $`x^0=0`$ simultaneity surface. Does this observer see a thermal state? Is there a sense in which there is an associated temperature? These questions can be addressed in a variety of ways. Here we consider the possibility of adapting the Bisognano-Wichman approach to this case.

Let us now come to the thermal time hypothesis. Consider a system with a large number of degrees of freedom. We describe our experimental knowledge of its state as a statistical state. A generic state determines a flow: In quantum theory, a state over an observable algebra determines a flow called the modular flow, or the Tomita flow. In the classical case, the relation between a state and a its modular flow reduces to the relation between the distribution $`\rho `$ on phase space representing the state and the Hamiltonian flow of $`\mathrm{ln}\rho `$. The thermal time hypothesis demands that the flow determined by the statistical state coincides with what we perceive as the physical flow of time. A second part of the hypothesis refers to the special cases in which a geometrical background provides an independent notion of temporal flow: if the geometric flow and the modular are related, the ratio of the rates of the two flows is identified as the temperature. The hypothesis was initially motivated by the problem of time in quantum gravity.

The Unruh effect can be interpreted as an example in which the thermal time hypothesis is realized. The relation between the Unruh effect and the thermal time hypothesis is the following. The vacuum state $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, restricted to the algebra of the observables in the wedge $`W`$ generates a modular flow. This modular flow is precisely proportional to the proper time flow of uniformly accelerated observers. For each observer, the ratio of the two flows is $`T_U`$. According to the thermal time hypothesis, this means that the natural physical time generated by $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ on the algebra of the observables in the wedge is the proper time of an accelerated observer, and the corresponding temperature is the Davis-Unruh temperature.

A natural question, then, is whether there are other cases in which the thermal time associated to a spacetime region has a physical meaning. Local algebras associated to diamonds are very natural objects in algebraic quantum field theory. As mentioned, a diamond is the region causally connected to an observer with finite lifetime. It is natural to wonder whether the modular flow generated by the vacuum restricted to the local algebra associated to a diamond –the “diamonds’ flow”, or the “diamonds’ time”– may have any significance at all.

In general, there is no reason to expect that a modular flow should have a geometric interpretation and lead to a notion of temperature. Remarkably, however, the modular flow of a diamond *is* associated to a geometric action in the case of a conformally invariant quantum field theory in four dimensions. Does this lead to a notion of temperature? The modular parameter $`s`$ cannot be directly proportional to the proper time along the geometric flow, because the modular parameter runs all along $``$ while the proper time $`\tau `$ of an observer in $`D_L`$ is bounded. However, we can nevertheless define a local temperature as the *local* ratio of the two flows. This allows us to define a temperature which is a natural generalization of the Unruh-Davies temperature to observers with a finite lifetime. In this paper we explicitly compute this temperature. For fixed acceleration, this temperature reduces to the Unruh temperature when $`L`$ is large.

Furthermore, this temperature does not vanish even for non-accelerating observers. The (minimal) temperature associated an inertial observer with lifetime $`𝒯`$ is the temperature

$$T_D=\frac{2\mathrm{}}{\pi k_b𝒯}.$$
(2)
This temperature is related to the fact that a finite lifetime observer does not have access to all the degrees of freedom of the field. But we leave any physical interpretation of this temperature for future investigations. In particular, it would be interesting to study whether it is related to the response of model detectors.

Section 2 briefly presents our main tools (definition of local observable algebra, modular automorphism and KMS condition) and the thermal time hypothesis. In Section 3, we recall the discussion of the Unruh effect in the Bisognano-Wichman approach. Section 4 presents our new results, namely the discussion of the generalization of the Unruh effect to diamonds $`D_L`$ and its physical interpretation. Section 5 briefly discusses the case of the future cone. Minkowski metric has signature $`(+,,,)`$. From now on, we take $`c=\mathrm{}=k_b=1`$.

## 2 Tools

### 2.1 Local observable algebra

Consider a quantum field theory on four dimensional Minkowski space. We restrict our attention to conformally invariant quantum field theories. The conformal group is the group of transformations $`xx^{}`$ that preserve the causal structure: $`(x^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }y^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu })(x_\mu ^{}y_\mu ^{})=0`$ iff $`(x^\mu y^\mu )(x_\mu y_\mu )=0`$. In four dimensions, this is the fifteen-parameters group generated by Poincaré transformations, dilatations and proper conformal transformations. An infinitesimal transformation is given by

$$\delta x^\mu =\omega ^\mu {}_{\nu }{}^{}x_{}^{\nu }+a^\mu +\lambda x^\mu +|x|^2k^\mu 2x^\mu k_\nu x^\nu ,$$
(3)
where $`(\omega _{\mu \nu }=\omega _{\nu \mu },a^\mu ,\lambda ,k^\mu )`$ are infinitesimal parameters. We assume that both the dynamics and the vacuum of our quantum field are invariant under these conformal transformations. Since mass terms break conformal invariance, this means that we are dealing with a massless field. Equivalently, we are considering a regime in which masses can be neglected.

We recall a few elements on local observable algebras.?,? We have a Hilbert space $`H`$ carrying a unitary representation $`U`$ of the Poincaré group. If the theory is conformally invariant, $`U`$ extends to a representation of the entire conformal group. There is a ray $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in $`H`$, called the physical vacuum, invariant under the action of the Poincaré group (or the conformal group). A field is an operator valued distribution over Minkowski space $`M`$. There is no operator corresponding to the value $`\varphi (x)`$ of the field $`\varphi `$ at a given point $`x`$; there is an operator $`\varphi (f)`$ corresponding to the quantity obtained smearing out the field with a smooth function $`f`$

$$\varphi (f)=\varphi (x)f(x)d^4x.$$
(4)
Consider a finitely extended open subset $`𝒪`$ of $`M`$. The algebra generated by all operators $`\varphi (f)`$, where $`f`$ has support in $`𝒪`$, is interpreted as representing physical operations that can be performed within $`𝒪`$. By completing this algebra in the norm topology, we obtain a $`C^{}`$-algebra $`(𝒪)`$. This is called the local observable algebra associated to $`𝒪`$. We have an algebra $`(𝒪)`$ associated to each open subset $`𝒪`$. The Reeh-Schlieder theorem states that the vacuum $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a cyclic and separating vector for $`(𝒪)`$ as soon as the causal complement of $`𝒪`$ (the set of all points which lie space-like to all points of $`𝒪`$) contains a non-void open set.aaa$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is cyclic but not separating for the algebra associated to the entire Minkowski space $`M`$. Intuitively, a separating state can be thought as a density matrix with nonvanishing components on *all* basis states.

### 2.2 Modular automorphisms

The Tomita-Takesaki theorem associates a preferred flow $`\sigma _s`$ to any $`C^{}`$-algebra $`𝒜`$ acting on a Hilbert space with a preferred cyclic and separating vector $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The flow is built as follows. Let $`S`$ be the conjugate linear operator from $`𝒜\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to $`𝒜\mathrm{\Omega }`$

$$Sa\mathrm{\Omega }a^{}\mathrm{\Omega }$$
(5)
for any $`a𝒜`$. $`S`$ is closeable with respect to the strong topology and its closure - still denoted by $`S`$\- has a unique polar decomposition

$$S=J\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}$$
(6)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a selfadjoint positive operator (unbounded in general) called modular operator and $`J`$ is antiunitary. This allows us to define a one-parameter group of automorphisms of $`𝒜`$: the modular group $`\sigma _s`$ of $`𝒜`$ associated to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$

$$\sigma _sa\mathrm{\Delta }^{is}a\mathrm{\Delta }^{is}$$
(7)
(see \[?\] for details on the definition of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{is}`$) with $`s`$. If $`𝒜`$ is the algebra of local observables on an open set $`𝒪`$ of Minkowski space, with non-void causal complement, we call modular group of $`𝒪`$ the modular group of $`(𝒪)`$ associated to the vacuum $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. We denote it as $`\sigma _s(𝒪)`$. We write $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒪)`$ for the corresponding modular operator.

### 2.3 KMS condition

Let us now recall the relation between modular flow and thermodynamics. Consider a physical system with a finite number of degrees of freedom, say $`N`$ particles in a finite box with volume $`V`$. In statistical physics, an equilibrium state is a state of maximal entropy. If $`H`$ is the hamiltonian describing $`S`$, the mean value of any observable $`a`$ when $`S`$ is in an equilibrium state at inverse temperature $`\beta `$ is

$$\omega (a)=\frac{1}{Z}\text{Tr}\left(e^{\beta H}a\right)$$
(8)
where the partition function $`Z`$ is given by

$$Z\text{Tr}(e^{\beta H}).$$
(9)
Consider now the thermodynamical limit of this system: send the volume of the box $`V`$ and the number of particles $`N`$ to infinity, keeping the density $`N/V`$ fixed. In this limit the total energy $`E`$ goes to infinity and therefore the partition function (9) is no longer defined. One therefore needs a way to characterize the equilibrium states alternative to equations (8) and (9). This can be obtained as follows. An equilibrium state $`\omega `$ of inverse temperature $`\beta `$ can be directly characterized as a state over the algebra satisfying the KMS condition. This requires that for any two observables $`a`$ and $`b`$

$$\omega ((\alpha _ta)b)=\omega (b(\alpha _{t+i\beta }a))$$
(10)
where $`\alpha _t`$ denotes the time translation

$$\alpha _ta=e^{iHt}ae^{iHt}$$
(11)
extended to a complex argument, and that the function

$$z\omega (b(\alpha _za))$$
(12)
is analytic in the strip

$$0<\text{Im}z<\beta .$$
(13)
A state $`\omega `$ satisfying these conditions is called KMS with respect to the time translation $`\alpha _t`$. One can shows that both conditions (10) and (12) reduce to (8) in the case of a finite dimensional system. These conditions represent the correct extension of the definition of an equilibrium state to infinite-dimensional systems.?

Now, the remarkable fact is that, given a $`C^{}`$-algebra $`𝒜`$ acting on a Hilbert space $`H`$ with a cyclic and separating vector $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, the faithful state $`\omega `$ over $`𝒜`$ defined by

$$\omega (a)=\mathrm{\Omega },a\mathrm{\Omega }$$
(14)
for any $`a𝒜`$ (we use Dirac notations) is KMS with respect to the modular group $`\sigma _s`$ defined by $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. More precisely one has

$$\omega ((\sigma _sa)b)=\omega (b(\sigma _{si}a)).$$
(15)
Define $`\alpha _{\beta s}\sigma _s`$. Then

$$\omega ((\alpha _{\beta s}a)b)=\omega (b(\alpha _{\beta s+i\beta }a)).$$
(16)
Therefore, if we *define*

$$t\beta s$$
(17)
we obtain condition (10) (as far as (12) is concerned, see ref. \[?\]). In other words: an equilibrium state at inverse temperature $`\beta `$ can be characterized as a faithful state over the observable algebra whose modular automorphism group $`\sigma _s`$ is the time translation group. The modular parameter $`s`$ is proportional to the time $`t`$. The proportionality factor is minus the inverse temperature. (The minus sign is there only for historical reasons: the mathematicians have defined the modular flow with sign opposite to that given by the physicists).

### 2.4 Thermal time hypothesis

The modular group equips a system in a generic state with a dynamics. The existence of such an intrinsic dynamics suggests a solution to a longstanding open puzzle in the physics of general covariant systems. The dynamical laws of a generally covariant system determine correlations between observables, but they do not single out any of these observables as time. This “timeless” structure is sufficient to provide all dynamical predictions. However, this timeless structure leaves us without any understanding of the physical basis for the flow of time, a flow that has evident observable effects particularly in thermodynamical contexts. The thermal time hypothesis is the idea that there is no dynamical basis for the flow of time, but there is a thermodynamical basis for it. More precisely, a generic state determines a modular flow, and it is this flow that represents the physical basis of the flow of time. This flow is state dependent. Thus:

The physical time depends on the state. When the system is in a state $`\omega `$, the physical time flow is given by the modular flow of $`\omega `$.

The second part of the hypothesis demands then that if the modular flow is proportional to a flow in spacetime, parametrized with the proper time $`\tau `$, then the ratio of the two flows is the temperature

$$\beta =\frac{1}{T}\frac{\tau }{s}.$$
(18)
In other words, when $`t`$ is independently defined, (17) becomes a definition of the temperature. In previous applications of this idea, only cases in which $`\frac{\tau }{s}`$ is exactly constant along the flow were considered. In this paper, we extend the framework slightly, by considering a case in which the modular flow is proportional to a flow in spacetime, but the constant of proportionality between $`\frac{d}{ds}`$ and $`\frac{d}{d\tau }`$ varies along the flow. In such a situation, it is natural to consider a local notion of temperature, defined at each point by

$$\beta (s)=\frac{1}{T(s)}=\frac{d\tau (s)}{ds}.$$
(19)
The thermal time hypothesis is based on the idea that the origin of time is thermodynamical, and that the time flow is state-dependent. In a sense, the thermal time hypothesis is an inversion and a generalization of KMS theory. Given a time flow $`\sigma `$, KMS theory identifies the thermal states as the KMS states of the time flow. But given the KMS state, the time flow $`\sigma `$ is precisely its modular flow. Since any generic state defines a modular flow, the idea here is that, generically, this modular flow is in fact the physical time that governs macroscopic thermodynamics.

As far as conventional systems are concerned, notice the following remarkable fact: if we measure the statistical distribution of an equilibrium state, we can infer the hamiltonian from the result. We can then define time as the parameter of the flow generated by the hamiltonian. This provide an operational characterization of time. On the other hand, it is well known that it is difficult to provide a purely dynamical (as opposed to statistical/thermodynamical) characterization of what is time. In a generally covariant context, where definitely no physical time is determined by the dynamics, the thermal time hypothesis identifies the physical time as the modular flow for generic states.

The thermal time hypothesis has been checked in several examples. The most striking one concerns the cosmic microwave background (CMB). The statistical state distribution describing the CMB determines a flow that coincides with the time coordinate of usual Friedman-Robertson-Walker metric.? The associated temperature is the CMB temperature. The Rindler wedge provides another example in which the hypothesis is realized.

For a detailed discussion of this issue and the motivations of the thermal time hypothesis, see refs. \[?,?\]. On the large literature on problem of time in general relativity see for instance ref. \[?\] and references therein.

## 3 Time in the Rindler Wedge

Consider a uniformly accelerated observer. For simplicity, let us assume that the motion is in a plane with constant $`x^2`$ and constant $`x^3`$, and that the acceleration four-vector writes $`(0,a,0,0)`$ in the local observer frame. Here $`a^+`$. The world line of this observer can be written as?

$$x^1=\sqrt{\frac{1}{a^2}+(x^0+C^{})^2}+C$$
(20)
where $`C`$ and $`C^{}`$ are constants. With a Poincaré transformation, we can take $`C`$ and $`C^{}`$ to zero

$$x^1=\sqrt{a^2+(x^0)^2}.$$
(21)
A Lorentz boost in the $`x_1`$ direction reads

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(\rho )=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}ch\rho & sh\rho & 0& 0\\ sh\rho & ch\rho & 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(22)
($`\rho `$). The trajectory (21) is an orbit of this group. The proper time $`\tau `$ along the orbit is proportional to the boost parameter $`\rho `$, and the proportionality factor is given by $`a`$

$$\rho =a\tau .$$
(23)
We can therefore parametrize the trajectory (21) with the proper time $`\tau `$ and write it as

$$x^\mu (\tau )=(a^1\text{sh}a\tau ,a^1\text{ch}a\tau ,0,0)$$
(24)
so that

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(a\tau )x(\tau _0)=x(\tau _0+\tau ).$$
(25)
That is, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(a\tau )`$ generates a proper-time translation of proper time $`\tau `$ along the accelerated world line.

Consider a quantum field theory defined on $`M`$ and let $`K`$ denote the representation of the generator of this boost, so that

$$U(\mathrm{\Lambda }(\rho ))=e^{i\rho K}.$$
(26)
Then the operator

$$U(\tau )=e^{ia\tau K}$$
(27)
can be viewed as an operator that generates the evolution in proper-time seen by the accelerated observer.

The region causally connected to the accelerated observer, namely the set of the points that can exchange signals with a uniformly accelerated observer is the Rindler wedge $`W`$, defined by

$$x^1>|x^0|.$$
(28)
The wedge $`W`$ has a non void causal complement thus the modular group $`\sigma _s(W)`$ is defined. The modular operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }(W)`$ is known?. It corresponds precisely to a Lorentz boost

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(W)=e^{2\pi K}.$$
(29)
therefore the modular flow $`\sigma _s(W)`$ (defined in (7)) is given by the boost

$$U(s)=e^{2\pi siK}.$$
(30)
This flow is precisely proportional to the geometric flow (27). The relation between the modular parameter $`s`$ and the proper time $`\tau `$ is obtained comparing the two operators: a translation by $`s`$ generates a shift in proper time

$$\tau =\frac{2\pi }{a}s.$$
(31)
From (18), the temperature is determined by

$$\beta =\frac{\tau }{s}=\frac{2\pi }{a}.$$
(32)
The result is therefore that the state $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, restricted to the Rindler wedge generates a time flow which is the one of an accelerated observer, with an associated temperature which is the Unruh-Davis temperature.

$$T=\frac{1}{\beta }=\frac{a}{2\pi }=T_U.$$
(33)
## 4 The time of the diamonds

### 4.1 Diamond’s modular group

Consider now an observer that lives for a finite time. Let $`x_i`$ be the event of his birth and $`x_f`$ the event of his death, which is in the past of $`x_i`$. To begin with, assume that the life of the observer is the straight segment from $`x_i`$ to $`x_f`$. Let

$$𝒯=2L=|(x_fx_i)|$$
(34)
be the observer lifetime, namely the proper time between $`x_i`$ and $`x_f`$. Let $`D`$ be the region which is in the past of $`x_f`$ and in the future of $`x_i`$. This region is called a Diamond. It is the region with which the observer can exchange signals during his lifetime: he can send a signal, and receive a response, to each point of $`D`$. Imagine that the observer sends out measuring apparata on spacecrafts to make local measurements on the quantum field, and receives back the signals from his apparata. Then he will be capable of observing, at most, the local observables in $`D`$. The local algebra to which he has access is therefore $`(D)`$. Assuming that the quantum field theory is in its vacuum state $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, we can ask what kind of state will this observer observe. The answer is the restriction of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to $`(D)`$. Let us therefore study the properties of this restriction.

With a Poincaré transformation, we can always choose Minkowski coordinates such that

$$x_i^\mu =(L,0,0,0),x_f^\mu =(L,0,0,0).$$
(35)
The region $`D`$ is then the region defined by

$$|x^0|+|\stackrel{}{x}|<L.$$
(36)
Now, the key observation is that there is a conformal transformation $`K:MM`$ that sends the diamond $`D`$ to the wedge $`W`$

$$K(D)=W.$$
(37)
Explicitly, if $`L=1`$, $`K`$ is given by

$`x^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }={\displaystyle \frac{2x^\mu +\delta _1^\mu (1+|x|^22x^1)}{1|x|^22x^1}}.`$ (38)
Using this map, it is immediate to find out the modular flow $`\sigma _s(D)`$ of the diamond local algebra $`(D)`$: this is simply obtained by mapping the modular flow of the wedge to the diamond?. More precisely, we consider the one parameter group of transformations $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_D(\rho )`$ of the diamond into itself given by

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_D(\rho )K^1\mathrm{\Lambda }(\rho )K.$$
(39)
Since this is a composition of conformal transformations, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_D`$ is a one-parameter subgroup of conformal transformations. A straightforward calculation (see ref. ?) gives $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_D(\rho ):x_\mu x_\mu (\rho )`$ where

$$x^\mu (\rho )=\frac{2x^\mu +\delta _0^\mu \left(2x^0\text{ ch}\rho +(1+x^\mu x_\mu )\text{sh}\rho 2x^0\right)}{2x^0\text{ sh}\rho +(1+x^\mu x_\mu )\text{ ch}\rho +(1x^\mu x_\mu )}.$$
(40)
As in the case of the wedge, the modular operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }(D)^{is}`$ is the representation of the conformal transformation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_D(\rho )`$ for $`\rho =2\pi s`$.

This generalizes easily to a diamond $`D_L`$ of arbitrary dimension $`L>0`$. The modular operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }(D_L)^{is}`$ is the representation of the conformal transformation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{D_L}(\rho )=\mathrm{\Lambda }_D(\rho )^1`$ where $``$ is the dilatation by a factor $`L`$. Explicitly

$$x^\mu (\rho )=L\frac{2Lx^\mu +\delta _0^\mu \left(2Lx^0\text{ch}\rho +(L^2+x^\mu x_\mu )\text{sh}\rho 2Lx^0\right)}{2Lx^0\text{sh}\rho +(L^2+x^\mu x_\mu )\text{ ch}\rho +(L^2x^\mu x_\mu )}.$$
(41)
### 4.2 Temperature

The orbits of the modular group of the diamond are uniformly accelerated trajectories. Indeed, consider a uniformly accelerated observer moving from $`x_i`$ to $`x_f`$ with acceleration $`a`$. For simplicity, assume that the motion is in the plane $`x^2=x^3=0`$. Its worldline is given by (20) with $`C^{}=0`$ and

$$C=a^1\sqrt{1+a^2L^2}.$$
(42)
We can parametrize this orbit using the proper time along the orbit. This gives

$$x^\mu (\tau )=(a^1\text{sh}a\tau ,a^1\text{ch}a\tau +C,0,0)$$
(43)
where $`\tau `$ runs from $`\tau _0`$ to $`\tau _0`$ with

$$\tau _0a^1\text{ arcsh }aL.$$
(44)
The line of universe (43) is precisely an orbit of the diamond’s modular group $`\sigma _s(D_L)`$. Let us fix the origin of the modular parameter $`s`$ so that $`s=0`$ when $`\tau =0`$. This gives $`x^\mu =x^\mu (0)=(0,a^1+C,0,0)`$. Inserting this value of $`x^\mu `$ in (41) gives, with simple algebra,

$`x^0(\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{La^1\text{ sh}\rho }{a^1\text{ ch}\rho C}},`$ (45)
$`x^1(\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L^2}{Ca^1\text{ ch}\rho }}`$
and $`x^2(\rho )=x^3(\rho )=0`$. Indeed, it is not difficult to check that for any $`\rho `$, $`x_1(\rho )C`$ is positive and satisfies $`(x_1(\rho )C)^2=a^2+x_0(\rho )^2`$ so $`(\text{45})`$ is solution of (21). Moreover

$$\underset{\rho \mathrm{}}{lim}x(\rho )=x_i,\underset{\rho \mathrm{}}{lim}x(\rho )=x_f$$
(46)
thus the orbit of $`x(\rho )`$ under the action of $`\sigma _s(D_L)`$ coincides with the worldline of the uniformly accelerated observer.

We have therefore two parameterizations of the same worldline. One (43) given by the proper time $`\tau ]\tau _0,\tau _0[`$, the other (45) given by the modular parameter $`\rho =2\pi s]\mathrm{},+\mathrm{}[`$. To find the relation between these two parameterizations, we can compare $`x^\mu (\tau )`$ with $`x^\mu (\rho )`$. This gives

$`x^0=`$ $`a^1\text{sh}a\tau `$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{La^1\text{ sh}\rho }{a^1\text{ ch}\rho C}},`$ (47)
$`x^1=`$ $`a^1\text{ch}a\tau +C`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{L^2}{Ca^1\text{ ch}\rho }}.`$ (48)
It is convenient to write $`\lambda \text{ arcsh}aL`$, so that $`aC=\text{ ch}\lambda `$. Using this, we have

$$\text{ sh}a\tau =\frac{\text{ sh}\rho \text{ sh}\lambda }{\text{ ch}\rho +\text{ ch}\lambda },\text{ ch}a\tau =\frac{1+\text{ ch}\lambda \text{ ch}\rho }{\text{ ch}\rho +\text{ ch}\lambda }.$$
(49)
This gives

$$\tau (\rho )=\frac{1}{a}\text{arcth}\left(\frac{\text{ sh}\rho \text{ sh}\lambda }{1+\text{ ch}\lambda \text{ ch}\rho }\right).$$
(50)
Differentiating, we get

$$\frac{d\tau (\rho )}{d\rho }=\frac{L}{\text{ ch}\rho +\text{ ch}\lambda }.$$
(51)
Recalling that $`\rho =2\pi s`$, and the definition of $`\lambda `$ we conclude

$$\frac{d\tau (s)}{ds}=2\pi \frac{d\tau (\rho )}{d\rho }=\frac{2\pi L}{\text{ ch}\rho +\text{ ch}\lambda }=\frac{2\pi L}{\sqrt{1+a^2L^2}+\text{ ch}(2\pi s)}.$$
(52)
The thermal time hypothesis (19) defines the temperature

$$\beta (s)=\frac{d\tau (s)}{ds}=\frac{2\pi L}{\sqrt{1+a^2L^2}+\text{ ch}(2\pi s)}.$$
(53)
Noticing from (45) that $`\beta =\frac{2\pi }{La}x^1`$, we can use (43) to rewrite this inverse temperature as

$$\beta (\tau )=\frac{2\pi }{La^2}(\sqrt{1+a^2L^2}\text{ch}a\tau )$$
(54)
In particular, at $`x^0=0`$, that is $`s=0`$, we have

$$\beta _0\beta (0)=\frac{2\pi L}{\sqrt{a^2L^2+1}+1}.$$
(55)
We analyze the meaning of this result in the following two sections.

### 4.3 Unruh effect for the observer with a finite lifetime

First, consider the case in which $`a`$ is large. This corresponds to orbits that stay near the boundary of the diamond. In particular, at $`x^0=0`$ the observer is near the edge $`|\stackrel{}{x}|=L`$ of the diamond. In the limit of large $`a`$, we have

$$\beta _0=\frac{2\pi }{a},$$
(56)
which is the Davis-Unruh temperature. Therefore, the thermal time hypothesis associates precisely the Davis-Unruh temperature to a uniformly accelerated observer *with a finite lifetime* that passes near the edge. For fixed acceleration $`a`$, an observer with finite lifetime, in the middle of his life, observes the Davis-Unruh temperature if his lifetime $`2L`$ is large enough. The first order correction in $`1/L`$ gives

$$\beta _0=\frac{2\pi }{a}\frac{2\pi }{a^2L},$$
(57)
while the exact formula for every $`L`$ is given by (55). This result provides a complete generalization of the Unruh effect to observers with finite lifetime. In order to better appreciate this result, consider the dependence of the temperature from the proper time. In the limit of large $`L`$, this is given by

$$\beta (\tau )=\frac{2\pi }{a}\left(1\frac{\text{ ch}(a\tau )}{aL}\right).$$
(58)
In Figure 1 we have plotted this function in the finite region of the observer proper time. Notice that the function goes rapidly to zero at the boundaries of the interval of the life of the observer, but it is nearly flat over most of the region. That is, for the observer measuring his proper time, $`\beta (\tau )`$ is constant and $`\beta _0`$ for most of his lifetime.

### 4.4 Diamond’s temperature

Next consider the case in which, for a given lifetime $`𝒯`$, the acceleration is small. In particular, consider the case in which $`a=0`$. This is the observer moving along a straight line from $`x_i`$ to $`x_f`$. Interestingly, the temperature associated to this observer does not vanish. The inverse temperature $`\beta `$ reaches a maximum value at $`x^0=0`$, which is

$$\beta _D=\pi L.$$
(59)
Therefore the thermal time hypothesis associates the finite temperature

$$T_D=\frac{1}{\beta _D}=\frac{2}{\pi 𝒯}$$
(60)
to an observer with a finite lifetime $`𝒯`$. Inserting back the dimensional constants $`s,\mathrm{}`$ and $`k_b`$, we get equation (2). What is the meaning of this temperature?

It is tempting to conjecture that this temperature is due to the fact that the observer cannot observe all the degrees of freedom of the quantum field. In particular, he can only observe the degrees of freedom that at time zero are inside the sphere $`|\stackrel{}{x}|<L`$. Because of the quantum field theoretical correlations between the inside and the outside of this sphere, the vacuum state restricted to this sphere is not a pure state. If this is correct, there should be a physical temperature naturally associated to observers with a finite lifetime, whether they are accelerating or not. We leave the study of this idea for future investigations (comparison with entanglement entropy of \[?\] may be interesting).

## 5 Future cone

For completeness, we describe here also an observer that is born at $`x_i`$ and lives forever. The region causally connected to this observer is the future cone $`V^+`$ of $`x_i`$. Since this has a non void causal complement, the vacuum restricted to $`V^+`$ is a separating state and we can search the action of its modular group $`\sigma _s(V^+)`$. In fact this action is also geometrical. Taking $`x_i`$ in the origin, it corresponds to the dilatation?

$$x^\mu x^\mu (s)e^{2\pi s}x^\mu .$$
(61)
As for the wedge and the diamond, we can interpret the orbits of this action as motions of a physical observer. An inertial observer with constant speed $`\stackrel{}{v}=(v^1,v^2,v^3)`$ with respect to the origin, which leaves the origin at $`\tau =0`$ follows the world line

$$x^\mu (\tau )=K^\mu \tau $$
(62)
where $`K^0c\gamma `$, $`K^i=v^i\gamma `$ with $`\gamma (1\frac{v^2}{c^2})^{\frac{1}{2}}`$. The (closure of the) line of universe (61) for $`s`$ coincides with the line of universe (62) where $`\tau `$ runs from $`0`$ to $`+\mathrm{}`$. The relation between the modular parameter $`s`$ and the proper time $`\tau `$ is easily obtained as

$$\tau (s)=e^{2\pi s}.$$
(63)
Therefore the temperature is

$$\beta (s)=2\pi e^{2\pi s}.$$
(64)
The temperature is finite and non zero at the birth of the observer and then it goes exponentially to zero, as it should for a long living observer moving with constant speed.

## 6 Conclusion

Starting from the thermal time hypothesis, we have obtained the result that the Unruh effect exists also for observers with a finite lifetime. Restauring dimensional constants, the thermal time hypothesis associates the temperature (54)

$$T(\tau )=\frac{\mathrm{}La^2}{2\pi k_bc^3\left(\sqrt{1+\frac{a^2L^2}{c^4}}\text{ch}\frac{a\tau }{c}\right)}$$
(65)
to an observer living for a finite time and moving with constant finite acceleration $`a`$ between two spacetime points at proper temporal distance $`𝒯=2L/c`$ from each other. The temperature depends on the observer proper time $`\tau `$ lapsed from the middle of his lifetime. In the limit of large $`L`$, we recover the Davis-Unruh temperature. For large $`L`$, an observer with a large acceleration sees the Davis-Unruh temperature for most of his lifetime.

Furthermore, it follows from the thermal time hypothesis that also an inertial observer with finite lifetime has an associated temperature. The minimum value of this temperature is the diamonds temperature $`T_D`$ (2)

$$T_D=\frac{2\mathrm{}}{\pi k_b𝒯}.$$
(66)
We have speculated that this temperature reflects the fact that the observer has no access to distant degrees of freedom. It would be interesting to understand whether this temperature is related to the response of model thermometers with finite lifetime.

Altogether, the thermal time hypothesis seems to play an interesting role in these physical situations. Much more work is needed to study the validity of this hypothesis, and its relation with thermodynamical and statistical temporal phenomena.

### Acknowledgments

Thank to G. Poggiospola for its helps in drawing with Mathematica. P. Martinetti was supported by an postdoctoral AUF grant.


format: text

text:
# Simple model of anisotropic pairing with repulsive interactions.

## Abstract

A simple tight binding model with repulsive interactions is studied. The inclusion of more than one orbital per site leads to assisted hopping effects, and, when the orbitals involved have different symmetries, to an anisotropic superconducting phase. Superconductivity exists for all fillings, and for all values of the on site repulsion.

Introduction. The existence of superconductivity in models of strongly correlated electrons with only repulsive interactions has attracted a great deal of attention in recent times. It was established, after the formulation of the BCS theory, that the metallic state is unstable towards anisotropic superconductivity, due to the angular dependence of the dielectric constantKL65 . This Kohn-Luttinger instability is greatly enhanced when the Fermi surface in anisotropicCL92 ; GGV96 ; H99 . By using RPA or model dielectric functions, it can also be shown that isotropic Fermi surfaces give rise to anisotropic superconductivityS95 . Varied numerical evidence suggests that models with purely repulsive interactions can lead to anisotropic superconductivityWS99 ; CS00 ; LK00 ; Metal00 .

An alternative scheme which leads to a superconducting ground state starting from models with repulsive interactions was proposed inHM89 ; H93 . This model includes an assisted hopping term which arises naturally when considering many orbitals at each lattice site. This assisted hopping term strongly favors the existence of a superconducting ground stateHM89 ; H93 ; Aetal94 . In its standard version, this model leads to isotropic superconductivity for small hole concentrations, and for a moderate value of the onsite repulsion. In this work, we present an extension of this model which has an anisotropic superconducting ground state for all dopings and arbitrary values of the onsite repulsion.

The model. We study the simplest model with the features discussed above. We postpone to the conclusions the analysis of possible generalizations. Following the scheme inHM89 , we assume an atom with two orbitals per site on a slightly distorted square lattice. The distortion makes the lattice orthorhombic. We assume that this distortion is small, and we will treat its effects as a perturbation. Using the tetragonal symmetry of the undistorted lattice, we take the lowest lying orbital to be $`d_{x^2y^2}`$, and the second orbital to be $`s`$ or $`d_{3z^2r^2}`$. We define $`\mathrm{\Delta }=ϵ_sϵ_{x^2y^2}`$ as the difference between the energy of these levels. Without loss of geenrality, we set $`ϵ_d=0`$. We assume that there is only repulsion between electrons in the $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ orbital, $`U`$. Hopping can take place only between nearest neighbors, with amplitudes $`t_{ss},t_{sd}`$ and $`t_{dd}`$. Finally, crystal field effects associated to the orthorhombic distortion induce an hybridization between the $`s`$ and $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ in the same site, $`V_{CF}`$. The hamiltonian is:

$``$ $`=`$ $`_{ion}+_{tunn}`$
$`_{ion}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma i}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }c_{s\sigma i}^{}c_{s\sigma i}+Un_{di}n_{di}+{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma i}{}}V_{CF}c_{s\sigma i}^{}c_{d\sigma i}+h.c.`$
$`_{tunn}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ij\sigma }{}}t_{dd}c_{d\sigma i}^{}c_{d\sigma j}+t_{ss}c_{s\sigma i}^{}c_{s\sigma j}\pm t_{sd}c_{s\sigma i}^{}c_{d\sigma j}+h.c.`$ (1)
For simplicity, we neglect here possible differences between the hoppings in the two directions due to the asymmetry of the latticeNK01 , which is included through the crystal field potential $`V_{CF}`$ only. Note that, due to the different symmetries of the two orbitals, the hopping between an $`s`$ and a $`d`$ orbital has opposite sign along the two axes of the lattice (see fig.).

We now assume that $`V_{CF}U,|t_{ss}|,|t_{sd}|,|t_{dd}|\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The lowest lying eigenstates of $`_{ion}`$ for each occupancy are:

$`|0`$ $`=`$ $`|0`$
$`|1_\sigma `$ $``$ $`\left(c_{d\sigma }^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{V_{CF}}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}c_{s\sigma }^{}\right)|0`$
$`|2`$ $``$ $`c_d^{}c_d^{}|0+{\displaystyle \frac{V_{CF}}{\mathrm{\Delta }U}}\left(c_d^{}c_s^{}+c_s^{}c_d^{}\right)|0`$ (2)
with energies:

$`E_0`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`E_1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_{CF}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}`$
$`E_2`$ $``$ $`U2{\displaystyle \frac{V_{CF}^2}{(\mathrm{\Delta }U)}}`$ (3)
Using eq.(2) we define an effective hopping which depends on the occupancy of the site. We find:

$`0_i|1_{\sigma j}|_{tunn}|1_{\sigma i}|0_j`$ $``$ $`t_{dd}\pm 2t_{sd}{\displaystyle \frac{V_{CF}}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}`$
$`1_i|1_j|_{tunn}|2_i|0_j`$ $``$ $`t_{dd}\pm t_{sd}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{CF}}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}+{\displaystyle \frac{V_{CF}}{\mathrm{\Delta }U}}\right)`$
$`1_{\sigma i}|2_j|_{tunn}||2_i1_{\sigma j}`$ $``$ $`t_{dd}\pm 2t_{sd}{\displaystyle \frac{V_{CF}}{\mathrm{\Delta }U}}`$ (4)
We can now write an effective hamiltonian:

$$_{eff}=\underset{i}{}\stackrel{~}{U}\stackrel{~}{n}_i\stackrel{~}{n}_j+\underset{\sigma ij}{}\stackrel{~}{t}_\pm \stackrel{~}{c}_{\sigma i}^{}\stackrel{~}{c}_{\sigma j}\pm \delta t(\stackrel{~}{n}_{\sigma i}+\stackrel{~}{n}_{\sigma j})\stackrel{~}{c}_{\sigma i}^{}\stackrel{~}{c}_{\sigma j}+h.c.$$
(5)
where we have shifted the origin of energies by $`V_{CF}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }`$, see eq.(3), and:

$`\stackrel{~}{c}_{\sigma i}`$ $``$ $`c_{d\sigma i}+{\displaystyle \frac{V_{CF}}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}c_{s\sigma i}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{t}_\pm `$ $``$ $`t_{dd}\pm 2t_{sd}{\displaystyle \frac{V_{CF}}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}`$
$`\delta \stackrel{~}{t}`$ $``$ $`2t_{sd}{\displaystyle \frac{V_{CF}U}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{U}`$ $``$ $`U2{\displaystyle \frac{UV_{CF}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}`$ (6)
Note that, as we are expanding to first order in $`V_{CF}/\mathrm{\Delta }`$, we can neglect normalization terms in the definition of the electron operators $`\stackrel{~}{c}_{\sigma i}`$. For the same reason, $`\delta \stackrel{~}{t}`$ has the same absolute value along the two axes of the lattice. The symmetries of the orbitals involved imply that, to first order, there are not next nearest neighbor assisted hopping terms.

Superconducting solution. The energy bands of the effective hamiltonian, eq.(5), are:

$$ϵ_{k_xk_y}=\left(\stackrel{~}{t}_++\frac{n}{2}\delta \stackrel{~}{t}\right)\mathrm{cos}(k_x)+\left(\stackrel{~}{t}_{}\frac{n}{2}\delta \stackrel{~}{t}\right)\mathrm{cos}(k_y)$$
(7)
Where $`n`$ is the number of electrons in the unit cell.

The pairing interaction isHM89 :

$$V_{k_xk_yk_x^{}k_y^{}}=\stackrel{~}{U}+\delta \stackrel{~}{t}\left[\mathrm{cos}(k_x)\mathrm{cos}(k_y)+\mathrm{cos}(k_x^{})\mathrm{cos}(k_y^{})\right]$$
(8)
The superconducting gap must be of the form:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{sck_xk_y}=a+b\left[\mathrm{cos}(k_x)\mathrm{cos}(k_y)\right]$$
(9)
Following ref.HM89 , at the transition temperature these coefficients satisfy:

$`a`$ $`=`$ $`a\left[\stackrel{~}{U}I_0\delta \stackrel{~}{t}(I_xI_y)\right]+b\left[\stackrel{~}{U}(I_xI_y)+\delta \stackrel{~}{t}(I_{xx}2I_{xy}+I_{yy})\right]`$
$`b`$ $`=`$ $`a\delta \stackrel{~}{t}I_0b\delta \stackrel{~}{t}(I_xI_y)`$ (10)
where:

$`I_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{k_xk_y}^{ϵ_{k_xk_y}<ϵ_F}}{\displaystyle \frac{n(ϵ_{k_xk_y}/T)}{ϵ_{k_xk_y}ϵ_F}}`$
$`I_x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{k_xk_y}^{ϵ_{k_xk_y}<ϵ_F}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}(k_x)n(ϵ_{k_xk_y}/T)}{ϵ_{k_xk_y}ϵ_F}}`$
$`I_{xx}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{k_xk_y}^{ϵ_{k_xk_y}<ϵ_F}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}^2(k_x)n(ϵ_{k_xk_y}/T)}{ϵ_{k_xk_y}ϵ_F}}`$ (11)
and similar expressions for $`I_y,I_{xy}`$ and $`I_{yy}`$. The function $`n(\omega /T)`$ is the Fermi-Dirac distribution, and $`ϵ_F`$ is the Fermi energy.

From eqs.(10), the critical temperature is given by:

$$0=1+\stackrel{~}{U}I_02\delta \stackrel{~}{t}(I_xI_y)+\delta \stackrel{~}{t}^2\left[(I_xI_y)^2I_0(I_{xx}2I_{xy}+I_{yy})\right]$$
(12)
The integrals in eqs.(11) diverge as $`\mathrm{log}[(N(ϵ_F)T]`$ at low temperatures, where $`N(ϵ_F)\stackrel{~}{t}^1`$ is the density of states at the Fermi level, and $`\stackrel{~}{t}=(\stackrel{~}{t}_+=\stackrel{~}{t}_{})/2`$. As we are assumming a weak orthorhombic distortion, $`I_xI_y`$. Hence, eq.(12) always has a solution at low temperatures. The critical temperature is given, approximately, by:

$$T_cc_1\stackrel{~}{t}e^{(c_2\stackrel{~}{U})/N(ϵ_F)\delta \stackrel{~}{t}^2}c_1^{}te^{(c_2\mathrm{\Delta }^4)/[t^2N(ϵ_F)V_{CF}^2U]}$$
(13)
where we assume $`t_{dd}t_{sd}t`$. $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ are numerical constants. The expression in eq.(13) implies that the superconductivity is supressed as $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}`$. It is enhanced by the the lattice asymmetry, described by $`V_{CF}`$, and by the existence of a finite $`U`$, as the assisted hopping term requires the presence of electron-electron interactions. Near half filling, the van Hove singularity in the density of states implies $`T_cte^{c\sqrt{\lambda }}`$, where $`\lambda =\mathrm{\Delta }^4/(tV_{CF}^2U)`$HS86 ; LB87 ; F87 . The expression in eq.(13) ceases to be valid near the band edges, as $`I_{xx}2I_{xy}+I_{yy}0`$. It can be shown that, in this limit:

$$\underset{n0}{lim}I_{xx}2I_{xy}+I_{yy}n$$
(14)
where $`n`$ is the number of carriers per unit cell. Then:

$$\underset{n0}{lim}T_cc_1^{}te^{(c_2\mathrm{\Delta }^4)/[ntV_{CF}^2U]}0$$
(15)
We can also calculate:

$$\frac{a}{b}\frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{t}^3N^2(ϵ_F)}{UI_0}\frac{t^3N^2(ϵ_F)U^2V_{CF}^3}{\mathrm{\Delta }^6}$$
(16)
so that $`a/b0`$ as $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ becomes the largest energy in the problem. In this limit, the gap, eq.(9), will have $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ symmetry.

It is interesting to compare the value in eq.(13) with the critical temperature deduced from the Kohn-Luttinger analysis for the Hubbard model without assisted hopping terms, $`T_{cKL}`$. The effective coupling constant arises from the screened interaction, and, to lowest order in $`U`$, it goes as $`U^2N(ϵ_F)`$. Hence, $`T_{cKL}d_1te^{d_2/(UN(ϵ_F)]^2}`$. Thus, within the perturbative approach used here, we find $`T_cT_{cKL}`$, although $`T_c`$ also depends on the strength of the orthorhombic distortion.

Phase diagram. So far, we have only considered the superconducting instability. Near half filling, it is well known that the hamiltonian in eq.(1) has nesting properties, and antiferromagnetism is favored. The corresponding Nèel temperature is proportional to the gap, so thatH85 :

$$T_Nb_1te^{b_2/\sqrt{UN(ϵ_F)}}$$
(17)
Assuming that $`V_{CF}\mathrm{\Delta }`$, we find that, near half filling, $`T_cT_N`$, and the system will be antiferromagnetic. This phase dissappears at densities, measured from half filling, $`ne^{b_2/\sqrt{UN(ϵ_F)}}`$. A sketch of the expected phase diagram is shown in Fig.. Th method used here cannot be used to elucidate the nature of the transition from the antiferromagnetic phase at half filling to the superconducting phase. Hartree-Fock studies of the Hubbard model suggest that an orthorhombic distortion favors the formation of stripesNK01 . Alternatively, phase separation is also possibleGGA00 . Higher order terms in $`V_{CF}/\mathrm{\Delta },U/\mathrm{\Delta }`$, not considered here, will break the electron-hole symmetry shown in Fig.HM89 ; H93 . It is interesting to note that the single band Hubbard model can show an intrinsic tendency towards an orthorhombic distortion near half fillingHM00 .

Conclusions. We have studied a variation of the assisted hopping model, which includes the effects of other atomic levels in Hubbard hamiltoniansHM89 ; H93  (see alsoLetal99 ). We have avoided the difficulties associated to intermediate coupling situations by restricting the study to a well defined weak coupling case, where standard perturbation theory is reliable (for a similar approach to other assisted hopping problem, seeG02 ).

The induced assisted hopping terms lead to d-wave superconductivity. The arguments used here show that the symmetry of the order parameter, for models with different atomic orbitals, is associated to the relative symmetry of these orbitals. When the most relevant orbitals are of the same symmetry, only s-wave superconductivity is possible, in agreement withHM89 ; H93 . It is interesting to note that the symmetry of the order parameter does not arise from the anisotropies of the Fermi surface, as for the Kohn-Luttinger mechanism. We have shown, that in the weak coupling regime, the value of the critical temperature arising from the assisted hopping term tends to be larger than that due to the Kohn-Luttinger mechanism. It is plausible that, in the same manner, the presence of assisted hopping terms will enhance the tendency of the standard Hubbard model towards superconductivity in the intermediate coupling regime.

Finally, the present results can be extended to other systems where assisted hopping terms are likely to arise. In quantum dots, where the sign of these terms can be randomG02 , they can enhance the tendency towards local pairing.

Acknowledgements. I am grateful to J. E. Hirsch, for sharing his insights in the nature of assisted hopping effects, and for many other helpful discussions. The hospitality of the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, where this work was done, is gratefully acknowledged. The KITP is supported by NSF through grant PHY99-07949. Additional funding comes from MCyT (Spain) through grant PB96-0875.


text:
# 1 Introduction and Summary

## 1 Introduction and Summary

An appealing way to generate time dependent configurations in string theory is to consider the classical decay of unstable systems of D-branes, pictured as a tachyon field rolling down a potential, towards a stable minimum. This system is promising from the viewpoint of studying time-dependence in string theory since the non-trivial dynamics is confined to the open string sector. Moreover, this setting provides a natural arena for discussing important cosmological ideas, such as inflation, and the beginning of time.

The quantitative study of rolling tachyons was initiated recently by A. Sen . It involves deforming the world sheet conformal field theory (CFT) of the unstable D-brane by an exactly marginal, time dependent tachyon profile. The deformed CFT is an exact classical background in string theory, interpreted as the classical decay of the unstable D-brane. Although several key results have been obtained, this approach is still in its infancy and central questions remain:

* In the classical approximation, the string coupling constant is strictly vanishing. However, it is not clear that the implied limit is smooth. The system with a small, but non-zero string coupling may differ qualitatively from the system with vanishing coupling. In such a scenario, the classical approximation is misleading. This concern is fueled by the somewhat mysterious role of closed strings in tachyon condensation: after the decay of the unstable D-brane only closed strings remain in the spectrum; yet the brane cannot decay into closed strings if the coupling is strictly vanishing.
* A tachyon profile with spatial momentum $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ has effective mass111We use units such that $`\alpha ^{}=1`$. $`m_t^2=1+\stackrel{}{k}^2`$ and so is unstable for any $`|\stackrel{}{k}|<1`$, indicating that all wave lengths play some role in the decay. Indeed, in quantum field theory it is well understood that tachyon condensation is a process where the longest wave lengths dominate, but all wave lengths participate, and the decay is definitely inhomogeneous. These results are best known in the context of cosmological inflation , but they are valid also for tachyon condensation in string theory . They indicate that spatially inhomogenous modes are important also for rolling tachyons.222 Other discussions of spatial variation include .

In this paper we study several new tachyon profiles with the goal of shedding light on these questions. The deformations we consider are actually technically simpler than those previously studied. We are therefore able to avoid the full machinery of boundary states and instead carry out the computations using elementary methods. The approach taken here complements the one taken in previous papers on rolling tachyons and may offer some conceptual advantages. As discussed in section 5, the new spatially homogenous profile, given below as (1), has a topology that is different from previous examples. In addition to this decay, in which the rolling tachyon has no spatial dependence, we study an exactly soluble example with spatially varying tachyon profile, where we can follow the decay to its inhomogeneous final state.

The simplest of the new profiles studied in this paper is

$$T(X)=\lambda e^{X^0}.$$
(1)
This can be interpreted as simultaneously displacing and giving a velocity to the tachyon, i.e. imposing the initial condition $`T(X^0=0)=_tT(X^0=0)=\lambda `$. An alternative, and better, spacetime interpretation is that of a perturbation at $`X^0=\mathrm{}`$ 333This was the point of view taken in the recent talk by Strominger .. Since this disturbance is automatically infinitesimal, the profile (1) seems to be a particularly clean example of a rolling tachyon.

The profile (1) is also particularly simple from a technical point of view. The simplest exactly marginal deformations of a world sheet CFT are generated by the vertex operators

$$V(X)=e^{ikX};k^2=k_0^2\stackrel{}{k}^2=1.$$
(2)
Of course these operator cannot usually be added to the world sheet action because they correspond to complex potentials. The standard remedy is to add also the conjugate operator and so consider perturbations of the form

$$T(\stackrel{}{X})=\lambda \mathrm{cos}(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{X})=\frac{\lambda }{2}(e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{X}}+e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{X}});\stackrel{}{k}^2=1.$$
(3)
After analytical continuation this leads to Sen’s profile $`T(X)=\lambda \mathrm{cosh}(X^0)`$. An alternative procedure, exploited in this paper, is to note that in the special case $`k_0=i`$, $`\stackrel{}{k}=0`$ the vertex operator (2) is in fact real, and so we can consider (1) directly, without adding the complex conjugate. This is much simpler because, in the case of (3), complications arise from the cross-terms between the two exponentials.

As explained above, it is important to study rolling tachyons with spatially varying profiles. Such profiles are generally quite complicated to analyze in the full CFT; but in the case of the profile

$$T(\stackrel{}{X})=\lambda e^{X^0/\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{cos}(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{X});\stackrel{}{k}^2=\frac{1}{2},$$
(4)
the study simplifies dramatically (similar, but more complicated tachyon profiles were discussed in ). Indeed, this profile is a linear combination of two vertex operators of the form (2). Crucially, these vertex operators commute, in contrast to those appearing in (3). Thus the theory with the profile (4) essentially reduces to two copies of (1).

Having solved the theory with the tachyon profile (4) we find the coupling to the energy momentum tensor for all times $`X^0`$. The energy momentum tensor exhibits qualitatively different behavior from the spatially homogenous case. It develops codimension one singularities in finite time. These singularities can be interpreted as an array of (excited) D-branes. This result is consistent with the expectation that final states will be spatially inhomogeneous for generic decay channels. Of course, the profile that we can actually solve (4) is actually quite special. Presumably that is why the final state in this example, although spatially inhomogeneous, is as finely tuned as a perfect array of unstable branes. In a realistic, semi-classical, analysis one would choose as initial state for the brane some wave-packet localized near the top of the tachyon potential and the full decay process would be described as an average, in a precise sense, of all the initial conditions represented by this wave packet. One would expect this final state to be dominated by generic, spatially dependent, configurations which, to the extent they can be described as a perfect fluid, certainly would have pressure.

This paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we explain our approach to rolling tachyons and carry out the details for the profile (1). In section 3 we consider the spatially inhomogeneous case (4) and discuss the lessons for the full decay process, when all spatial variations are included. In section 4, we extend these results to the superstring case. Finally, in section 5, we discuss the topology of our profiles, their relations to previous works, and construct the boundary states corresponding to our solutions.

## 2 Rolling Tachyons

The strategy for treating rolling tachyons is to deform the world sheet CFT of an unstable D-brane by an exactly marginal operator and interpret the deformed CFT as a time dependent solution to the classical string equations of motion. Instead of studying the system in terms of a boundary state of the closed string theory (which was Sen’s approach in ), we will primarily work with open strings, equating the disk partition function with space-time action, following the analysis of static tachyon configuations in boundary string field theory .

### 2.1 Generalities

According to the $`\sigma `$-model approach to string theory, the space-time action is given by the partition function of the world-sheet theory, with the world-sheet couplings interpreted as spacetime fields . Thus, in the open string sector,

$$S[\lambda _i]Z_{\mathrm{disk}}(\lambda _i)=[dX^\mu ]e^{I_{\mathrm{bulk}}I_{\mathrm{bndy}}},$$
(5)
where $`Z_{\mathrm{disk}}`$ is the disk partition function, $`\lambda _i`$ are exactly marginal couplings for the boundary operators, and

$`I_{\mathrm{bulk}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _D}d^2z\eta _{\mu \nu }X^\mu \overline{}X^\nu ,`$ (6)
$`I_{\mathrm{bndy}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _D}𝑑tT(X)+\mathrm{},`$ (7)
where $`D`$ is the unit disk and $`D`$ is its boundary. $`T`$ is the tachyon field and the $`\mathrm{}`$ indicate other marginal boundary perturbations. This procedure is similar in spirit to the boundary string field theory approach to tachyon condensation , although here we limit ourselves to marginal perturbations.

Our formulae above are written for Euclidean spacetimes, as well as Euclidean world-sheets. The time-dependence is then taken into account by including the Minkowskian metric $`\eta ^{\mu \nu }=(,+,\mathrm{},+)`$ when contracting the temporal fields $`X^0`$. This procedure is motivated by analytical continuation, as in Sen’s computations using boundary states and cubic string field theory. This type of analytical continuation is clearly not completely satisfying; indeed, the precise relation between Lorentzian and Euclidean signature is one of the main unsettled questions facing most approaches to time dependence in string theory. On the other hand, the analytical continuation gives physically reasonable results in many examples, including those considered here; so it presumably captures important aspects of the problem.

It will be useful to write the action $`S`$ as a space-time integral over a Lagrangian density. To this end, we split $`X^\mu `$ into a constant and a varying part, $`X^\mu =x^\mu +X^\mu `$ and write

$`S`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle [dX^\mu ]e^{I_{\mathrm{bulk}}I_{\mathrm{bndy}}}}`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^px\sqrt{g}[dX^\mu ]e^{\frac{1}{2\pi }_Dd^2zg_{\mu \nu }X^\mu \overline{}X^\nu I_{\mathrm{bndy}}}},`$
where, in the second line, we have made the obvious generalization of the expression to curved space. In this paper we are primarily considering the coupling to gravity, to explore the time-evolution of an unstable D-brane in a flat background.444It would be interesting to apply our methods for couplings to more massive strings as well, in an effort to illluminate the problems discussed in . See also  for the coupling to the closed string. From the spacetime action we form the energy-momentum tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }=\frac{2}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{\delta S}{\delta g^{\mu \nu }}`$ and use $`\frac{\delta \sqrt{g}}{\delta g^{\mu \nu }}=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{g}g_{\mu \nu }`$ to find

$$T_{\mu \nu }(x)=K\left((x)\eta _{\mu \nu }+𝒜_{\mu \nu }(x)\right),$$
(9)
in flat space. Here $`K`$ is an overall normalization constant and

$`(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle [dX^\mu ]e^{\frac{1}{2\pi }_Dd^2z\eta _{\mu \nu }X^\mu \overline{}X^\nu I_{\mathrm{bndy}}}},`$ (10)
$`𝒜^{\mu \nu }(x)`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle [dX^\mu ]\frac{d^2z}{2\pi }X^\mu \overline{}X^\nu e^{\frac{1}{2\pi }_Dd^2z\eta _{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2\pi }X^\mu \overline{}X^\nu I_{\mathrm{bndy}}}}`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle [dX^\mu ]X^\mu (0)\overline{}X^\nu (0)e^{\frac{1}{2\pi }_Dd^2z\eta _{\mu \nu }X^\mu \overline{}X^\nu I_{\mathrm{bndy}}}}.`$
In the second line of (11) we fixed the position of the vertex operator and used $`\frac{d^2z}{2\pi }=\frac{1}{\pi }A(D)=1`$ for the unit disc. The expression (9) for the energy-momentum tensor was previously derived by Sen  using BRST invariance of the corresponding boundary state. In the following we consider various $`T(X)`$, corresponding to tachyon profiles with specific space-time dependence. To determine the energy-momentum tensor for each profile we need to compute $`𝒜^{\mu \nu }`$ and $``$.

### 2.2 Spatially Homogenous Decay

In this section we study the tachyon profile

$$T(X)=\lambda e^{X^0}.$$
(12)
This is an exactly marginal deformation of the CFT and so an exact solution to the classical string equations of motion. It is interpreted in spacetime as a perturbation at $`X^0=\mathrm{}`$, displacing the tachyon infinitesimally from the unstable maximum of the potential. Alternatively, this profile corresponds to kicking the tachyon from $`T(X^0=0)=\lambda `$, with velocity $`_tT(X^0=0)=\lambda `$.

To determine the stress tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ for this tachyonic profile, we need to compute the functions $`(x^0)`$ and $`𝒜_{\mu \nu }(x^0)`$.

#### 2.2.1 $`(x^0)`$

The function $`(x^0)`$ is the disk partition function, except that zero modes remain unintegrated. Using $`\mathrm{}`$ as symbols for expectation values on the disc we have the perturbative expansion

$`(x^0)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{I_{\mathrm{bndy}}(x+X^{})}=e^{\lambda e^{x^0}{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑te^{X^0}}},`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi \lambda e^{x^0})^n}{n!}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt_1}{2\pi }\mathrm{}\frac{dt_n}{2\pi }e^{X^0(t_1)}\mathrm{}e^{X^0(t_n)}},`$ (14)
The Green’s function on the unit disk with Neumann boundary conditions is

$$G^{\mu \nu }(z,z^{})=X^\mu (z)X^\nu (z^{})=\eta ^{\mu \nu }(\mathrm{log}|zz^{}|\mathrm{log}|z\overline{z}^{}1|),$$
(15)
so, taking $`z_i=e^{it_i}`$, we find

$$e^{X^0(t_1)}\mathrm{}e^{X^0(t_n)}=\underset{i<j}{}|e^{it_i}e^{it_j}|^2=4^{\frac{n(n1)}{2}}\underset{i<j}{}\mathrm{sin}^2(\frac{t_it_j}{2}).$$
(16)
The integrals in (14) give555These integrals can be derived by considering an integration over $`U(n)`$ matrices and using the known result that the $`U(n)`$ Haar measure $`dU`$, when expressed in terms of the eigenvalues, becomes
$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{vol}U(n)}𝑑U=\frac{1}{n!}\underset{i}{}\frac{dt_i}{2\pi }\mathrm{\Delta }^2(t),$$
(17)  where $`\mathrm{\Delta }(t)`$ is the relevant Vandermonde determinant for $`U(n)`$ matrices
$$\mathrm{\Delta }(t)=\underset{i<j}{}2\mathrm{sin}(\frac{t_it_j}{2}).$$
(18)  By noticing that the LHS in (17) is 1, the integral in (19) follows immediately.

$$\frac{dt_1}{2\pi }\mathrm{}\frac{dt_n}{2\pi }4^{\frac{n(n1)}{2}}\underset{i<j}{}\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{t_it_j}{2}\right)=n!,$$
(19)
and the final result for $`(x^0)`$ becomes

$$(x^0)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(2\pi \lambda e^{x^0})^n}{n!}n!=f(x^0),$$
(20)
where

$$f(x^0)\frac{1}{1+2\pi \lambda e^{x^0}}.$$
(21)
The summation of the perturbative series is clearly justified for couplings within the radius of convergence $`|\lambda |<\frac{1}{2\pi }e^{x^0}`$. The regime of validity may be extended by analytical continuation to include all positive $`\lambda `$. The precise justification for this extension is an interesting question that deserves further study.

#### 2.2.2 $`𝒜^{\mu \nu }`$

The $`𝒜^{\mu \nu }`$ are proportional to expectation values of graviton vertex operators $`:X^\mu \overline{}X^\nu :`$, where the normal ordering symbol $`::`$ indicate that the divergent pieces have been subtracted as $`zz^{}`$

$$:X^\mu (z)\overline{}X^\nu (z^{}):=X^\mu (z)\overline{}X^\nu (z^{})+\eta ^{\mu \nu }\overline{}^{}\mathrm{log}|zz^{}|.$$
(22)
For the purpose of our calculation, it is useful to define another kind of normal ordering symbol $`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}_{}`$ where we subtract the full Green’s function (15), viz

$${}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}X^\mu (z)\overline{}X^\nu (z^{}){}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=X^\mu (z)\overline{}X^\nu (z^{})\overline{}^{}G^{\mu \nu }(z,z^{}),$$
(23)
including the contribution from the image charge. The two normal orderings are related as

$$:X^\mu (0)\overline{}X^\nu (0):={}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}X^\mu (0)\overline{}X^\nu (0){}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+\frac{1}{2}\eta ^{\mu \nu }.$$
(24)
Now we are ready to calculate $`𝒜^{\mu \nu }`$. For $`i,j0`$ we have

$`𝒜^{ij}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`2:X^i(0)\overline{}X^j(0):e^{\lambda e^{x^0}{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑te^{X^0}}}`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`2\left({}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}X^i(0)\overline{}X^j(0){}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^{ij}}{2}}\right)e^{\lambda e^{x^0}{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑te^{X^0}}}`$
$`=`$ $`\delta ^{ij}f(x^0).`$
In going from the second to the third line, the normal ordered term between $`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}_{}`$ gives no contribution, and the term proportional to $`\delta ^{ij}`$ is exactly the same as $`(x^0)`$ computed earlier.

The calculation of $`𝒜^{00}`$ is a bit more involved.

$`𝒜^{00}`$ $`=`$ $`2:X^0(0)\overline{}X^0(0):e^{\lambda {\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑te^{X^0}}}`$ (26)
$`=`$ $`2{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}X^0(0)\overline{}X^0(0){}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}e_{}^{\lambda e^{x^0}{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑te^{X^0}}}f(x^0)`$
$`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi \lambda e^{x^0})^n}{n!}}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}X^0(0)\overline{}X^0(0){\displaystyle {}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt_i}{2\pi }e^{X^0(e^{it_i})}}f(x^0).`$
The correlation function in (26) yields

$${}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}X^0(z)\overline{}X^0(\overline{z}){}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}:e^{X(w_i)}:=\underset{i<j}{}|w_iw_j|^2\underset{i,j}{}\left(\frac{1}{zw_i}\right)\left(\frac{1}{\overline{z}\overline{w}_j}\right)\delta _{n>0},$$
(27)
which, for $`z=0`$ and $`w_j=e^{it_j}`$ gives

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dt_i}{2\pi }}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}X^0(0)\overline{}X^0(0){\displaystyle {}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}:e^{X(e^{it_i})}:`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt_i}{2\pi }\underset{i<j}{}|e^{it_i}e^{it_j}|^2\underset{i,j}{}e^{i(t_it_j)}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt_i}{2\pi }\underset{i<j}{}2\mathrm{sin}^2(\frac{t_it_j}{2})\left(n+2\underset{i<j}{}\mathrm{cos}(t_it_j)\right)}.`$
The integral is

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{dt_i}{2\pi }\underset{i<j}{}2\mathrm{sin}^2(\frac{t_it_j}{2})\left(n+2\underset{i<j}{}\mathrm{cos}(t_it_j)\right)=n!,$$

and (26) becomes

$$𝒜^{00}=f(x^0)2.$$
(28)
Collecting the various results we find the stress tensor for the tachyon profile (12)

$$T_{00}=K((x^0)+𝒜_{00}(x^0))=𝒯_p,T_{ij}=K((x^0)+𝒜_{ij}(x^0))=\delta _{ij}𝒯_pf(x^0).$$
(29)
We have determined the normalization constant $`K=\frac{1}{2}𝒯_p`$ by comparison with the static limit $`\lambda =0`$. As expected, $`T_{00}`$ is independent of $`x_0`$, which is just the statement of conservation of energy. Moreover, $`T_{ij}0`$ as $`x^0\mathrm{}`$, so the pressure vanishes in this limit, i.e. the decay product is pressureless tachyon matter, as in .

## 3 Spatially Inhomogenous Decay

We will now investigate the spatially inhomogenous decay. A spatially inhomogenous profile $`T(X)=2\lambda e^{\omega X^0}\mathrm{cos}(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{X})`$ is marginal for $`\omega ^2+\stackrel{}{k}^2=1`$. This can be written as a sum of two vertex operators, each of which is exactly marginal: $`T(X)=\lambda \left(e^{\omega X^0+i\stackrel{}{k}.\stackrel{}{X}}+e^{\omega X^0i\stackrel{}{k}.\stackrel{}{X}}\right)`$. For generic $`\omega `$, this is not an exactly marginal deformation because of the singular OPE between the two vertex operators. Hence it does not yield a solution to the classical string equations of motion. However, for $`\omega =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}`$, this perturbation is exactly marginal. Without any loss of generality, we can keep only one component of $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ to be non-zero, denoting the corresponding direction $`Y\sqrt{2}\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{X}`$. Thus we have

$`T(X)`$ $`=`$ $`2\lambda e^{\frac{X^0}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{Y}{\sqrt{2}}})=\lambda \left(e^{\frac{X^0+iY}{\sqrt{2}}}+e^{\frac{X^0iY}{\sqrt{2}}}\right)`$ (30)
$`=`$ $`\lambda (e^U+e^V),`$ (31)
where we have defined new variables

$$U=\frac{X^0+iY}{\sqrt{2}},V=\frac{X^0iY}{\sqrt{2}},$$
(32)
such that

$`U(z)U(w)`$ $`=`$ $`V(z)V(w)=\mathrm{log}|zw|+\mathrm{log}|z\overline{w}1|),`$ (33)
$`U(z)V(w)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{regular}.`$ (34)
Thus $`U`$ and $`V`$ behave as commuting time-like coordinates, with no mixing between $`U`$ and $`V`$.

Using the variables $`U`$ and $`V`$, the calculation of $``$ and $`𝒜^{\mu \nu }`$ proceeds very similarly to the calculation in the last section. To compute $``$, we need to compute

$$(u,v)=e^{\lambda {\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑t(e^{u+U^{}}+e^{v+V^{}})}},$$
(35)
where $`u`$ and $`v`$ are linear combinations of the zero modes of $`X^0`$ and $`Y`$

$$u=\frac{x^0+iy}{\sqrt{2}},v=\frac{x^0iy}{\sqrt{2}},$$
(36)
and $`U^{}`$ and $`V^{}`$ are non-zero modes of $`U`$ and $`V`$. Since there is no mixing between $`U`$ and $`V`$ and (35) factorizes as

$$(u,v)=e^{\lambda e^u{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑te^U^{}}}e^{\lambda e^v{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑te^V^{}}}=f(u)f(v),$$
(37)
where, as in the previous section, we have defined $`f(u)`$ as

$$f(u)=\frac{1}{1+2\pi \lambda e^u}.$$
(38)
The calculations for $`𝒜^{\mu \nu }`$, with the insertion of a graviton vertex operator factorize similarly. For example

$`𝒜^{uu}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`2:U(0)\overline{}U(0):e^{\lambda {\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑t(e^{u+U^{}}+e^{v+V^{}})}}`$ (39)
$`=`$ $`2\left({}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}U(0)\overline{}U(0){}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)e^{\lambda e^U{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑te^U^{}}}e^{\lambda e^v{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑te^V^{}}}`$
$`=`$ $`\left(f(u)2\right)f(v).`$
The remaining components give,

$`𝒜^{uv}(u,v)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`𝒜^{vv}(u,v)`$ $`=`$ $`f(u)\left(f(v)2\right)`$
$`𝒜^{ij}(u,v)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ij}f(u)f(v).`$
Furthermore, from the relations

$$A_{uu}=\frac{1}{2}(A_{00}A_{yy}+2iA_{0y});A_{uv}=\frac{1}{2}(A_{00}+A_{yy});A_{vv}=\frac{1}{2}(A_{00}A_{yy}2iA_{0y}),$$
(40)
and using (9), the stress tensor for this spatially inhomogenous decaying solution can be calculated to be

$`T_{00}(x^0,y)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒯_p{\displaystyle \frac{1+2\pi \lambda e^{\frac{x^0}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{cos}(\frac{y}{\sqrt{2}})}{1+4\pi \lambda e^{\frac{x^0}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{cos}(\frac{y}{\sqrt{2}})+4\pi ^2\lambda ^2e^{\sqrt{2}x^0}}},`$ (41)
$`T_{0y}(x^0,y)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒯_p{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \lambda e^{\frac{x^0}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{sin}(\frac{y}{\sqrt{2}})}{1+4\pi \lambda e^{\frac{x^0}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{cos}(\frac{y}{\sqrt{2}})+4\pi ^2\lambda ^2e^{\sqrt{2}x^0}}},`$ (42)
$`T_{yy}(x^0,y)`$ $`=`$ $`T_{00}(x^0,y).`$ (43)
This stress tensor is conserved, i.e.

$$_0T^{00}_yT^{y0}=0,$$
(44)
The form of the stress tensor and its late time behavior is qualitatively different from that obtained in the spatially homogenous case in section (2.2). Certainly at large times $`x^0\mathrm{}`$ all components of the stress tensor (41-43), including the energy density, approach zero. However, this result probably cannot be trusted since, at a finite critical time $`x_c^0\sqrt{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1}{2\pi |\lambda |}\right)`$, the stress energy tensor exhibits singularities at the spatial loci

$`y_n`$ $`=`$ $`2\sqrt{2}n\pi ,nZ,(\lambda <0),`$ (45)
$`y_n`$ $`=`$ $`2\sqrt{2}(n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\pi ,nZ,(\lambda >0).`$ (46)
In  Sen proposed that these singularities should be interpreted as codimension one D-branes. To see this, we introduce the auxiliary variable

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=e^{\frac{x^0x_c^0}{\sqrt{2}}},$$
(47)
and, for either sign of $`\lambda `$, we write the energy density $`\rho =T_{00}`$ as

$$\rho =𝒯_p\frac{(1\mathrm{\Delta })+2\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}^2(\frac{yy_0}{2\sqrt{2}})}{(1\mathrm{\Delta })^2+4\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}^2(\frac{yy_0}{2\sqrt{2}})}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Delta }1}𝒯_{p}^{}\left[\frac{1}{2}+\sqrt{2}\pi \underset{nZ}{}\mathrm{sgn}(x_c^0x^0)\delta (yy_n)\right].$$
(48)
The limit was computed using $`lim_{ϵ0}\frac{ϵ}{ϵ^2+\alpha ^2}=\pi \delta (\alpha )`$ close to each singular locus. The corresponding average energy density changes discontinuously from $`𝒯_p`$ to $`0`$ as we pass $`x_c^0`$. The form of the limiting energy density (48) suggests that the missing energy forms co-dimension one defects at the $`y_n`$. As we pass the critical time $`x_c^0`$, the loss in energy at each $`y_n`$ is $`2\sqrt{2}\pi 𝒯_p`$. This result for the defect energy can be verified using energy conservation, noting that the defects are $`\mathrm{\Delta }y=2\sqrt{2}\pi `$ apart, and no bulk energy remains after they form. A co-dimension one D-brane has tension $`𝒯_{p1}=2\pi 𝒯_p`$ and so the defect has additional energy, beyond that needed to form a D-brane. Nevertheless it is plausible that these defects are indeed related to D-branes since the spatial potential $`T(X)\mathrm{cos}(Y/\sqrt{2})`$ tends to confine the ends of the strings, much as in the corresponding off-shell discussion in ).

## 4 Rolling Tachyons in Superstring Theory

The purpose of this section is to generalize the results of the previous sections to the superstring. In each step of the computation details are modified, and so must be repeated; but the final results are closely analogous to the bosonic case.

### 4.1 Generalities

In the superstring case world-sheet fermions must be included in a manner consistent with world-sheet supersymmetry. A convenient way implement this is to introduce world-sheet superfields. Thus the string coordinates (on the boundary of the disk) are represented by

$$𝐗^\mu =X^\mu +\theta \psi ^\mu ,$$
(49)
and the Chan-Paton index of the brane is encoded in the boundary fermions

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^I=\eta ^I+\theta F^I.$$
(50)
We will consider only the simplest case of a single non-BPS D-brane. Since this corresponds to a single boundary fermion we can omit the index $`I`$. In this formalism the boundary action for a general tachyon profile $`T(𝐗)`$ is

$$I_{\mathrm{bndy}}=𝑑t𝑑\theta [𝚪D𝚪+𝚪T(𝐗)],$$
(51)
where $`D`$ denotes the derivative in superspace $`D=_\theta +\theta _z`$. A single boundary fermion $`𝚪`$ can be integrated out with the result

$$e^{I_{\mathrm{bndy}}}\mathrm{}=P\mathrm{exp}[dtd\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }T(𝐗)]_{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{even}}\mathrm{}=P\mathrm{cosh}[dtd\theta T(𝐗)]\mathrm{},$$
(52)
within correlators. Here $`P`$ is the standard path-ordering operator. Note that this path-ordering operator is not trivial in the above espression because $`𝑑t𝑑\theta T(𝐗)`$ is fermionic and then it does not commute with itself. The boundary fermions serve to make world-sheet supersymmetry manifest but, in the present context, they play the role of Chan-Paton matrices $`\sigma _1`$, for which the restriction to even terms arises from the overall trace.666 We have ignored the contact term $`e^{{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑t𝑑\theta T(𝐗)^2}}`$ which appear in (52) for general tachyon profiles. This term is important in BSFT discussions of tachyon condensation , as well as in the time dependent case . Here we follow Sen  and regard the right hand side of (52) as the starting point of our discussions.

Following the bosonic example, our main interest is in inserting the identity operator

$$(x)=P\mathrm{cosh}\left(𝑑t𝑑\theta T(𝐗)\right),$$
(53)
and the gravity vertex operator

$$𝒜^{\mu \nu }=V^{\mu \nu }(0,0)P\mathrm{cosh}\left(𝑑t𝑑\theta T(𝐗)\right),$$
(54)
where, in the present case,

$$V^{\mu \nu }(0,0)=2𝑑\theta 𝑑\overline{\theta }[D𝐗^\mu \overline{D}𝐗^\nu ]_{z=\overline{z}=0}$$
(55)
The energy momentum tensor still follows from (9).

In (53) and (54) the brackets $`\mathrm{}`$ denote averaging with respect to the non-zero mode part of the bosonic fields, as before. In concrete examples, we can evaluate these expressions in perturbation theory using the two point function

$$𝐗^\mu 𝐗^\nu =\eta ^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{log}|z_{12}|^2,$$
(56)
where

$$z_{12}=z_1z_2i\sqrt{z_1z_2}\theta _1\theta _2.$$
(57)
The form (56) of the two point function is valid when both coordinates are on the boundary of the disk. This will suffice for our applications.

### 4.2 The Simple Decay

We consider first the supersymmetric version of the profile (30), i.e.

$$T(𝐗)=\lambda e^{𝐗^0/\sqrt{2}}.$$
(58)
Expanding (53) in the parameter $`\lambda `$ and using (56) yields

$`(x^0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^n(2\pi \lambda e^{x^0/\sqrt{2}})^{2n}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2n}{}}\frac{dt_i}{2\pi }d\theta _i\mathrm{\Theta }(t_1t_2)\mathrm{\Theta }(t_2t_3)\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Theta }(t_{2n1}t_{2n})}`$ (59)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}|e^{it_i}e^{it_j}ie^{\frac{i}{2}(t_i+t_j)}\theta _i\theta _j|.`$
Noticing $`|e^{it_i}e^{it_j}ie^{\frac{i}{2}(t_i+t_j)}\theta _i\theta _j|=|e^{it_i}e^{it_j}|+\mathrm{sign}(t_it_j)\theta _i\theta _j`$, the integrals can be evaluated with the result777 We checked (60) for $`n3`$.

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n}{}}\frac{dt_i}{2\pi }d\theta _i\mathrm{\Theta }(t_1t_2)\mathrm{\Theta }(t_2t_3)\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Theta }(t_{2n1}t_{2n})\underset{i<j}{}|e^{it_i}e^{it_j}ie^{\frac{i}{2}(t_i+t_j)}\theta _i\theta _j|=\frac{1}{2^n},$$
(60)
so, after summation of the series, we find

$$(x^0)=\frac{1}{1+2\pi ^2\lambda ^2e^{\sqrt{2}x^0}}.$$
(61)
The insertion of a graviton operator brings a few more complications, as in the bosonic case. The proper normal ordering again gives

$$:V^{\mu \nu }:={}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}V_{}^{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+\eta ^{\mu \nu },$$
(62)
and thus, without any further effort,

$$𝒜^{ij}(x^0)=(x^0)\delta ^{ij}.$$
(63)
The graviton with two temporal indices is evaluated in perturbation theory starting from (54). In addition to a term $`\eta ^{00}=`$ from the normal ordering (62), we find an integral over the correlator

$`({\displaystyle }d\theta d\overline{\theta }{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}D𝐗^\mu (w)\overline{D}𝐗^\nu (\overline{w}){}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2n}{}}}e^{𝐗(z_i)/\sqrt{2}}={\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}|z_iz_ji\sqrt{z_iz_j}\theta _i\theta _j|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k,l}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_kw}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{z}_l\overline{w}}},`$ (64)
with $`w=\overline{w}=0`$. The expressions can then be combined as

$$𝒜^{00}=+2\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^n(2\pi \lambda e^{x^0/\sqrt{2}})^{2n}I_{2n},$$
(65)
where the integrals888We also checked (66) for $`n3`$.

$$I_{2n}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n}{}}\frac{dt_i}{2\pi }d\theta _i\mathrm{\Theta }(t_1t_2)\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Theta }(t_{2n1}t_{2n})\underset{i<j}{}|e^{it_i}e^{it_j}ie^{\frac{i}{2}(t_i+t_j)}\theta _i\theta _j|\frac{1}{2}\underset{k,l}{}e^{i(t_kt_l)}\theta _k\theta _l=\frac{1}{2^n}\delta _{n>0}.$$
(66)
The final result thus becomes

$$𝒜^{00}(x^0)=\frac{1}{1+2\pi ^2\lambda ^2e^{\sqrt{2}x^0}}2=(x^0)2,$$
(67)
as in the bosonic case.

The non-vanishing components of the energy momentum tensor now read

$$T_{00}=K((x^0)+𝒜_{00}(x^0))=2K,T_{ij}=K((x^0)\delta _{ij}+𝒜_{ij}(x^0))=2K\delta _{ij}(x^0),$$
(68)
where $``$ was given in (61). The overall constant $`K`$ again is identified as $`K=\frac{1}{2}𝒯_p`$. As in the bosonic case, the energy density is constant $`\rho =𝒯_p`$ throughout the decay. The pressure

$$p=2(x^0)=\frac{𝒯_p}{1+2\pi ^2\lambda ^2e^{\sqrt{2}x^0}},$$
(69)
is equal to the energy density $`p=\rho `$ for the unstable brane at $`x^0=\mathrm{}`$; but it decays exponentially to zero at large times. The main difference with the bosonic case is that now the decay is symmetric under $`\lambda \lambda `$. In the supersymmetric case there is no singularity for either sign, as expected since the tachyon potential is symmetric, with both directions sloping down to the stable closed string vacuum.

All these results are closely analogous to Sen’s discussions, based on the potential $`T(X)=\lambda \mathrm{cosh}(X)`$.

### 4.3 Spatial Inhomogeneity

We also want to consider a spatially inhomogeneous profile for the superstring. The simplest example is

$$T(𝐗)=2\lambda e^{\frac{1}{2}𝐗^0}\mathrm{cos}(\frac{1}{2}𝐘),$$
(70)
where $`Y`$ is one of the spatial directions. As in the bosonic case, this example is factorizable

$$T(𝐗)=\lambda e^{\frac{1}{2}(𝐗^\mathrm{𝟎}+i𝐘)}+\lambda e^{\frac{1}{2}(𝐗^\mathrm{𝟎}i𝐘)},$$
(71)
where, crucially, $`𝐗^\mathrm{𝟎}+i𝐘`$ and $`𝐗^\mathrm{𝟎}i𝐘`$ have regular OPEs. Thus the example is essentially two copies of the profile (58).999The factorization could be imperfect in the superstring case, due to the fermionic nature of the boundary fermions . This may spoil the exact marginality of the profile. However, we expect that it indeed factorizes since there is a path-ordered operator $`P`$ in the definition of the correators and this $`P`$ may recover the the marginality of the profile. From (61) we immediately find

$$(x^0,y)=\frac{1}{2}𝒯_p\frac{1}{|1+2\pi ^2\lambda ^2e^{x^0+iy}|^2},$$
(72)
while (63) gives $`𝒜^{ij}=\delta ^{ij}`$ for $`i,jy`$, and (65) combines with (61) to give

$$𝒜_{\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(x^0+iy),\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(x^0+iy)}=\frac{1}{2}𝒯_p\left(\frac{1}{1+2\pi ^2\lambda ^2e^{x^0+iy}}2\right)\frac{1}{1+2\pi ^2\lambda ^2e^{x^0iy}}.$$
(73)
The expressions, along with the complex conjugate of the last equation, yields the energy momentum tensor

$`T_{00}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒯_p\mathrm{Re}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+2\pi ^2\lambda ^2e^{x^0iy}}}=𝒯_p{\displaystyle \frac{1+2\pi ^2\lambda ^2e^{x^0}\mathrm{cos}y}{1+4\pi ^2\lambda ^2e^{x^0}\mathrm{cos}y+4\pi ^4\lambda ^4e^{2x^0}}},`$ (74)
$`T_{yy}`$ $`=`$ $`T_{00},`$ (75)
$`T_{0y}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒯_p\mathrm{Im}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+2\pi ^2\lambda ^2e^{x^0iy}}}=𝒯_p{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^2\lambda ^2e^{x^0}\mathrm{sin}y}{1+4\pi ^2\lambda ^2e^{x^0}\mathrm{cos}y+4\pi ^4\lambda ^4e^{2x^0}}}.`$ (76)
The energy momentum tensor again exhibits singularities. They appear at the critical time $`x_c^0=\mathrm{log}(2\pi ^2\lambda ^2)`$ and at the loci

$$y_n=(2n+1)\pi ,nZ.$$
(77)
The energy density $`\rho =T_{00}`$ behaves as

$$\rho 𝒯_p\left[\frac{1}{2}+2\pi \underset{nZ}{}\mathrm{sgn}(x_c^0x^0)\delta (yy_n)\right],$$
(78)
as the critical time is approached, essentially like the bosonic case (48). In the superstring case the interpretation is on a firmer footing since the tachyon profile (70) amounts to the rolling down either of two sides of a symmetric, and regular, potential. Given the topology of this situation it is not at all surprising that codimension one defects result. Additionally, defects interpolating between the two sides of the potential are known to couple to $`RR`$-fields such that, in the present case, consecutive branes have opposite signs, $`D`$-branes and anti-$`D`$-branes. They are sufficiently separated that the low energy fluctuation spectrum contains no tachyons; so the configuration is classically stable. Nevertheless, the energy density of the defect is larger by a factor of $`\sqrt{2}`$ than that of a $`BPS`$ D-brane. As in the bosonic case we can verify this result using energy conservation.

## 5 Symmetries and Boundary States

The purpose of this section is to reconsider the tachyon profiles in the previous sections using the methods and results from Sen’s recent work on related profiles .

### 5.1 The Group of Time-Dependent Marginal Deformations

A natural set of spatially homogeneous tachyon profiles in bosonic string theory is

$$T(X)=\lambda _1\mathrm{cosh}X^0+\lambda _2\mathrm{sinh}X^0,$$
(79)
for general $`(\lambda _1,\lambda _2)`$. These tachyon profiles are invariant under $`X^0X^0+c,(\lambda _1\pm \lambda _2)(\lambda _1\pm \lambda _2)e^c`$; so time translations act on the parameters $`(\lambda _1,\lambda _2)`$ as the group $`SO(1,1)`$. This means group invariants $`\lambda _1^2\lambda _2^2`$ and $`\mathrm{sign}(\lambda _1\pm \lambda _2)`$ classify the possible perturbations, in the sense that any two tachyon profiles of the form (79) with identical values of these invariants are physically equivalent.

As a representative of the elliptic equivalence class $`\lambda _1^2\lambda _2^2>0`$, we can take $`T(X)=\lambda _1\mathrm{cosh}X^0`$. Since $`T(X^0=0)=\lambda _1`$, $`_0T(X^0=0)=0`$ this corresponds to there being a time, chosen without loss of generality as $`X^0=0`$, where the tachyon is displaced from the top of potential, but its velocity vanishes. Physically, we can thus think of the elliptic equivalence class as having negative energy. The tachyon field starts at the bottom of the potential, reaches a maximum at an intermediate time taken as $`X^0=0`$, and it returns to its starting point at large times. The sign of $`\lambda _1`$ determines which side of the potential the entire trajectory takes place, with positive lambda corresponding to the stable side for bosonic strings.

As representative of the hyperbolic equivalence class $`\lambda _1^2\lambda _2^2<0`$, we can take $`T(X)=\lambda _2\mathrm{sinh}X^0`$, also considered in . For this profile $`T(X^0=0)=0`$, $`_0T(X^0=0)=\lambda _2`$; so this corresponds to there being a time where the tachyon is on top of the potential, with a non-vanishing velocity. Physically we can think of the hyperbolic trajectories as having positive energy, with the tachyon field starting at the bottom on one side, reaching the maximum the top of the potential at the time chosen as $`X^0=0`$, and then rolling to the bottom of the potential on the other side. The sign of $`\lambda _2`$ determines which side of the potential the motion starts from.

The main focus in this paper is the parabolic equivalence class $`\lambda _1^2=\lambda _2^2`$. Taking $`\lambda _1=\lambda _2(=\lambda )`$ in (79) gives

$$T(X)=\lambda e^{X^0}.$$
(80)
A good physical characterization of the parabolic case is vanishing energy; the tachyon starts at the top of the potential, reaching the bottom of the potential at late times. Having no energy in the initial state, except for the tension of the unstable brane itself, this profile realizes the intuition of a spontaneously decaying brane. Time translations can be absorbed in the magnitude of the parameter $`\lambda `$ which is thus inconsequential. Taking $`\lambda _1=\lambda _2(=\lambda )`$ would be the time-reversed trajectory, and the sign of $`\lambda `$ corresponds to the two sides of the potential. The parabolic tachyon profile is called a half S-brane in , with the hyperbolic one being an S-brane.

The parabolic profiles can be obtained as limiting cases of the elliptic ones. Indeed, starting from $`T(X)=\lambda _1\mathrm{cosh}(X^0)`$ and taking the limit $`\lambda _10,c\mathrm{}`$ with fixed $`\lambda =\frac{1}{2}\lambda _1e^c`$, we recover (80). The limit corresponds to tuning the displacement of the tachyon at $`X^0=0`$ to zero, while moving the time at which the maximum is reached from from $`X^0=0`$ to the infinite past.

Since the parabolic profiles can be represented as limits of the elliptic ones, the corresponding energy-momentum tensors can be determined from those computed by Sen . For (79), with $`\lambda _2=0`$, Sen found the stress tensor $`T_{00}=\frac{𝒯_p}{2}(1+\mathrm{cos}2\pi \lambda _1)`$ and $`T_{ij}=\delta _{ij}T_{00}f(x^0)`$, where

$$f(x^0)=\frac{1}{1+\mathrm{sin}(\lambda _1\pi )e^{x^0}}+\frac{1}{1+\mathrm{sin}(\lambda _1\pi )e^{x^0}}1.$$
(81)
Generalizing this result to arbitrary elliptic $`(\lambda _1,\lambda _2)`$, using the symmetry under time translation, we find

$`T_{00}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒯_p}{2}}\left[1+\mathrm{cos}(2\pi \sqrt{\lambda _1^2\lambda _2^2})\right],`$
$`T_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ij}T_{00}f(x^0),`$ (82)
where

$$f(x^0)=\frac{1}{1+(\lambda _1+\lambda _2)\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\pi \sqrt{\lambda _1^2\lambda _2^2})}{\sqrt{\lambda _1^2\lambda _2^2}}e^{x^0}}+\frac{1}{1+(\lambda _1\lambda _2)\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\pi \sqrt{\lambda _1^2\lambda _2^2})}{\sqrt{\lambda _1^2\lambda _2^2}}e^{x^0}}1.$$
(83)
Taking the limit $`\lambda _1\lambda _2^+(\lambda )`$ to the parabolic case this gives $`T_{00}=𝒯_p`$ and $`T_{ij}=\delta _{ij}𝒯_pf(x^0)`$ with

$$f(x^0)=\frac{1}{1+2\pi \lambda e^{x^0}},$$
(84)
in agreement with our explicit computations. The corresponding limit for the superstring similarly lead to the results found in the previous section.

### 5.2 Spatial Variation

We can also consider the profile with spatial variation

$$T(X)=2\lambda e^{\frac{X^0}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{cos}(\frac{Y}{\sqrt{2}}),$$
(85)
as a limit of the profile

$$T(X)=\lambda _1\mathrm{cosh}\frac{X^0}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{cos}(\frac{Y}{\sqrt{2}}),$$
(86)
considered previously by Sen. The procedure is to replace $`X^0X^0+c`$ and then taking the limit $`\lambda _10,c\mathrm{}`$ with fixed $`\lambda \frac{1}{4}\lambda _1e^{c/\sqrt{2}}`$. The profile (86) was found to yield the energy momentum tensor

$`T_{00}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒯_p\mathrm{Re}\stackrel{~}{f},`$
$`T_{0y}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒯_p\mathrm{Im}\stackrel{~}{f},`$
$`T_{yy}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒯_p\mathrm{Re}\stackrel{~}{f}=T_{00},`$
$`T_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒯_p\delta _{ij}|\stackrel{~}{f}|^2,`$ (87)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{f}=\frac{1}{1+\mathrm{sin}(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\pi /2)e^{(x^0+iy)/\sqrt{2}}}+\frac{1}{1+\mathrm{sin}(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\pi /2)e^{(x^0+iy)/\sqrt{2}}}1,$$
(88)
so we can simply take the limit and find

$$\stackrel{~}{f}=\frac{1}{1+2\pi \lambda e^{(x^0+iy)/\sqrt{2}}}.$$
(89)
Then (87) agrees with the results of our explicit computations (41-43).

### 5.3 The Full Boundary States

Since the parabolic case can be obtained as a suitable limit of other cases we can also use previous works to obtain the full boundary state.

Let us first review the strategy following . Starting with the general profile (79), performing the Wick rotation $`X^0=iX`$ and redefining $`\lambda _2=i\lambda _2^{}`$, we find the tachyon profile $`T(X)=\lambda _1\mathrm{cos}X+\lambda _2^{}\mathrm{sin}X`$. This action contains only modes with integer momentum modes; so we can consider the theory compactified on a self-dual radius $`R=1`$, instead of the uncompactified theory. At this radius there is an $`SU(2)`$ current algebra with zero-modes

$$J^\pm =\frac{dz}{2\pi i}e^{\pm 2iX_R(z)},J^3=\frac{dz}{2\pi i}iX_R(z).$$
(90)
The tachyon profile $`T(X)`$ is precisely a linear combination of these generators and we see that the $`(\lambda _1,\lambda _2^{})`$ can be represented as $`SU(2)`$ parameters as

$$=\mathrm{exp}\left(i\pi \left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \lambda _1+i\lambda _2^{}\\ \lambda _1i\lambda _2^{}& 0\end{array}\right)\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ b^{}& a^{}\end{array}\right),$$
(91)
where

$$a=\mathrm{cos}\left(\pi \sqrt{\lambda _1^2+\lambda _{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\right),b=i\frac{\lambda _1+i\lambda _2^{}}{\sqrt{\lambda _1^2+\lambda _{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\mathrm{sin}\left(\pi \sqrt{\lambda _1^2+\lambda _{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\right).$$
(92)
The boundary state for the unperturbed D-brane, with $`X^0`$ kept explicit, can be written as

$$|B_{x^0}^{\mathrm{Neumann}}=\underset{j=0,\frac{1}{2},\mathrm{}}{}\underset{m=j}{\overset{j}{}}|j,m,m,$$
(93)
where $`|j,m,m`$ is the Virasoro-Ishibashi state  for the discrete Virasoro primary $`|j,m,m|j,m\overline{|j,m}`$. It is simply a sum of all Virasoro descendants of the primary $`|j,m,m`$.

Since the tachyon profile $`T(X)`$ is an element of the $`SU(2)`$ algebra, and $`|j,m`$ transforms in the $`(j,m)`$ representation of $`SU(2)`$ algebra, the non-trivial part of the boundary state becomes simply

$$|B_{x^0}=\underset{j=0,\frac{1}{2},\mathrm{}}{}\underset{m=j}{\overset{j}{}}D_{m,m}^j()|j,m,m,$$
(94)
where $`D_{m,m}^j()`$ is the spin $`j`$ representation matrix of the rotation $``$ in $`J_z`$ eigenbasis (see  for an explicit form) .

To find the boundary state for the time-dependent tachyon profile (79), we then apply the appropriate inverse Wick rotation noting that, after the inverse Wick rotation, $`b^{}`$ is not the complex conjugate of $`b`$. In the parabolic limit $`\lambda _1\lambda _2^+\lambda `$ the ”rotation” matrix becomes

$$=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 2\pi i\lambda & 1\end{array}\right).$$
(95)
These considerations indeed give the correct stress tensor, for general $`(\lambda _1,\lambda _2)`$. Writing the boundary state as

$$|B_{x^0}=f(x^0)|0+g_{\mu \nu }(x^0)\alpha _1^\mu \overline{\alpha _1^\nu }|0+\mathrm{},$$
(96)
the stress tensor is given by $`T_{\mu \nu }(x^0)=f(x^0)\eta _{\mu \nu }+g_{\mu \nu }(x^0)`$, as in section 2. The boundary state $`|B_{x^0}_{j=0,\frac{1}{2},\mathrm{}}(D_{j,j}^j|j,j,j+D_{j,j}^j|j,j,j)`$, with $`|j,\pm j,\pm j=(i)^{2j}e^{\pm 2ijX(0)}|0+\mathrm{}`$ and $`D_{j,j}^j=(b^{})^{2j}`$,$`D_{j,j}^j=b^{2j}`$ indeed lead to the $`f(x^0)`$ given in (83). The $`g_{\mu \nu }(x^0)`$ is similarly reproduced correctly. From the boundary state point of view the simplification offered by the parabolic case is that the representation matrices take the simple form

$$D_{m,m}^j=\frac{(j+m)!}{(jm)!(2m)!}(2\pi i\lambda )^{2m}\delta _{m0},$$
(97)
rather than the complex formula given in .

## Acknowledgements

We thank V. Balasubramanian, M. Einhorn, Y. He, M. Huang, T. Levi, and B. Zwiebach for discussions. F.L. is supported in part by DOE grant and A.N. is supported by DOE grant DOE-FG02-95ER40893. A. N. and S. T. thank the Michigan Center for theoretical physics for hospitality during portions of this work.