format: text

text:
# References

UTHET-02-0901

The Penrose limit of AdS$`\times S`$ space and holography111Research supported by the DoE under grant DE-FG05-91ER40627.

George Siopsis222gsiopsis@utk.edu
Department of Physics and Astronomy,

The University of Tennessee, Knoxville,

TN 37996 - 1200, USA.

Abstract

In the Penrose limit, AdS$`\times S`$ space turns into a Cahen-Wallach (CW) space whose Killing vectors satisfy a Heisenberg algebra. This algebra is mapped onto the holographic screen on the boundary of AdS. I show that the Heisenberg algebra on the boundary of AdS may be obtained directly from the CW space by appropriately constraining the states defined on it. The transformations generated by the constraint are similar to gauge transformations. The “holographic screen” on the CW space is thus obtained as a “gauge-fixing” condition.

The Penrose limit  of AdS$`\times S`$ space is obtained by boosting along a null geodesic. If the spin in $`S`$ is non-vanishing, then one obtains a Cahen-Wallach (CW) space whose Killing vectors satisfy a Heisenberg algebra. The sigma model (string theory) defined on such a background is exactly solvable  and may therefore shed some light on the AdS/CFT correspondence. Naturally, it attracted much attention resulting in an extensive literature on the subject which cannot be adequately cited here.

The existence of an AdS/CFT correspondence in the Penrose limit has presented a puzzle because there is no apparent holographic screen in the CW space on which the CFT would reside, unlike its AdS counterpart . A number of proposals on this issue have been made . In the case of pure AdS space, the Penrose limit is flat Minkowski space. This is a special case of AdS$`\times S`$ in which we consider a geodesic with no spin in $`S`$. Even though no holographic principle exists on a Minkowski space, a “holographic screen” can be obtained upon restricting the states on the Minkowski space to those with a certain fixed scaling dimension. By viewing this as a constraint on the system, the transformation it generates can be treated similarly to a gauge transformation, even though it is not local. The system is completely defined by data specified on a hypersurface which cuts each orbit of “gauge” transformations precisely once. This hypersurface is introduced as a “gauge-fixing” condition. We thus obtain two constraints which are of second class dictating the replacement of Poisson brackets by Dirac brackets. This turns the Poincaré algebra on the flat Minkowski space into a conformal algebra in the limit in which the hypersurface becomes flat. The hypersurface thus defined plays the role of the holographic screen .

Here, I extend the discussion in  to generic null geodesics in AdS$`\times S`$ space. First, I discuss how the isometries of CW space which form a Heisenberg algebra are mapped onto the holographic screen where they act on states of large scaling dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`R`$-charge $`J`$ with small (fixed) $`\mathrm{\Delta }J`$. I then show that the holographic screen may be obtained by an appropriate restriction of the Hilbert space on CW space. This restriction generates transformations which may be viewed as gauge transformations in the sense described above. Then the “gauge-fixing” condition is a restriction to a hypersurface in CW space. In the limit where this hypersurface becomes flat, I recover the expected state of affairs on the AdS holographic screen.

Let us start by fixing the notation. We are interested in the AdS$`{}_{p+1}{}^{}\times S^q`$ space. AdSp+1 is defined within a flat $`(p+2)`$-dimensional space as the hypersurface

$$X_0^2X_1^2\mathrm{}X_p^2+X_{p+1}^2=R^2$$
(1)
$`S^q`$ is the surface

$$Y_1^2+\mathrm{}+Y_{q+1}^2=R^2$$
(2)
in the $`(q+1)`$-dimensional Euclidean space $`𝔼^{q+1}`$. The respective metrics in the two embedding spaces are

$$ds_{\mathrm{AdS}}^2=dX_0^2+dX_1^2+\mathrm{}+dX_p^2dX_{p+1}^2,ds_S^2=dY_1^2+\mathrm{}+dY_{q+1}^2$$
(3)
Expressing the embedding coordinates in terms of global parameters spanning AdSp+1,

$$X^0=R\mathrm{cosh}\rho \mathrm{cos}t,X^{p+1}=R\mathrm{cosh}\rho \mathrm{sin}t,X^i=R\mathrm{sinh}\rho \mathrm{\Omega }^i(i=1,\mathrm{},p)$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1^2+\mathrm{}+\mathrm{\Omega }_p^2=1`$ span the unit sphere $`S^{p1}`$, the AdSp+1 metric, which is inherited from the embedding upon imposing the constraint (1), may be written as

$$\frac{ds_{\mathrm{AdS}}^2}{R^2}=\mathrm{cosh}^2\rho dt^2+d\rho ^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2\rho d\mathrm{\Omega }_{p1}^2$$
(5)
Similarly, we parametrize the sphere $`S^q`$ by

$$Y^1=R\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi ,Y^q=R\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi ,Y^i=R\mathrm{sin}\theta \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^i(i=2,\mathrm{},q1)$$
(6)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2^2+\mathrm{}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{q1}^2=1`$ span the unit sphere $`S^{q2}`$. The metric on the sphere reads

$$\frac{ds_S^2}{R^2}=\mathrm{cos}^2\theta d\varphi ^2+d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{q2}^2$$
(7)
The group of isometries of AdSp+1 is $`SO(p,2)`$ whose generators we shall denote by $`K_{AB}`$. In terms of the global AdS coordinates (4), we have

$`K_{(p+1)0}`$ $`=`$ $`i_t`$
$`K_{0i}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}t\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_i_\rho +\mathrm{coth}\rho _i\right)\mathrm{sin}t\mathrm{tanh}\rho \mathrm{\Omega }_i_t`$
$`K_{(p+1)i}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}t\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_i_\rho +\mathrm{coth}\rho _i\right)+\mathrm{cos}t\mathrm{tanh}\rho \mathrm{\Omega }_i_t`$ (8)
the rest of the generators $`K_{ij}`$ ($`i,j=1,\mathrm{},p`$) being the angular momenta on the sphere $`S^{p1}`$ spanned by $`\mathrm{\Omega }^i`$. The algebra of the Killing vectors is easily verified to be $`SO(p,2)`$ if one uses

$$_i\mathrm{\Omega }_j=\delta _{ij}\mathrm{\Omega }_i\mathrm{\Omega }_j$$
(9)
It is also useful to introduce the ladder operators

$$K_{\pm i}=K_{0i}\pm iK_{(p+1)i}=e^{\pm it}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_i(_\rho \pm i\mathrm{tanh}\rho _t)\mathrm{coth}\rho _i\right)$$
(10)
in terms of which the $`SO(p,2)`$ algebra reads

$$[K_{0(p+1)},K_{\pm i}]=\pm K_{\pm i},[K_{+i},K_j]=2iK_{ij}+2\delta _{ij}K_{0(p+1)}$$
(11)
The quadratic Casimir is

$`𝒞_{\mathrm{AdS}}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}K^{AB}K_{AB}`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`K_{0(p+1)}^2\frac{1}{2}\{K_{+i},K_{}^i\}+\frac{1}{2}K_{ij}K^{ij}`$
$`=`$ $`_\rho ^2{\displaystyle \frac{p\mathrm{cosh}^2\rho 1}{\mathrm{cosh}\rho \mathrm{sinh}\rho }}_\rho +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}^2\rho }}_t^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}^2\rho }}_\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$
Setting $`𝒞_{\mathrm{AdS}}=m^2R^2`$, we deduce the scalar wave equation on AdSp+1,

$$\left(_\rho ^2+\frac{p\mathrm{cosh}^2\rho 1}{\mathrm{cosh}\rho \mathrm{sinh}\rho }_\rho \frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}^2\rho }_t^2+\frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}^2\rho }_\mathrm{\Omega }^2\right)\mathrm{\Psi }^{(\mathrm{AdS})}=m^2R^2\mathrm{\Psi }^{(\mathrm{AdS})}$$
(13)
Near the boundary of AdS ($`\rho \mathrm{}`$), we have $`𝒞_{\mathrm{AdS}}_\rho ^2+p_\rho `$. If $`\mathrm{\Psi }\rho ^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ near the boundary, we deduce

$$𝒞_{\mathrm{AdS}}=\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Delta }p)=m^2R^2$$
(14)
and so

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm =\frac{1}{2}p\pm \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{p^2+4m^2R^2}$$
(15)
The normalizable modes have $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$. The exact solution to the wave equation is

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{nL\stackrel{}{m}}^{(\mathrm{AdS})}=e^{i\omega t}\mathrm{tanh}^L\rho \mathrm{cosh}^\mathrm{\Delta }\rho {}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(n,L+\mathrm{\Delta }+n;L+p/2;\mathrm{tanh}\rho )Y_{L\stackrel{}{m}}(\mathrm{\Omega }_{p1})$$
(16)
where $`\omega =\mathrm{\Delta }+L+2n`$ ($`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$), labeled by the quantum number $`n`$ (or equivalently, $`\omega `$) and the $`SO(p)`$ quantum numbers $`(L,\stackrel{}{m})`$. The group of isometries $`SO(p,2)`$ has a maximum compact subgroup $`SO(2)\times SO(p)`$, where $`SO(2)`$ is generated by the Hamiltonian $`H`$, defined as the momentum conjugate to $`t`$ ($`H=i_t`$), and $`SO(p)`$ is the group of rotations. The solutions to the wave equation form a highest-weight representation of $`SO(p,2)`$, the highest-weight state being the one with $`n=0`$. It has energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and transforms trivially under the group of rotations $`SO(p)`$, i.e., it has $`L=0`$. Explicitly,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_0^{(\mathrm{AdS})}=e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }t}\mathrm{cosh}^\mathrm{\Delta }\rho $$
(17)
The solution space is built by repeatedly acting on the ground state with the creation operators $`K_{+i}`$. The boundary is conformally equivalent to an Einstein universe $`S^1\times S^{p1}`$ and the $`SO(p,2)`$ generators turn into the generators of the conformal group,

$$𝒦_{(p+1)0}=i_t,𝒦_{\pm i}=e^{\pm it}(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_i+_i\pm i\mathrm{\Omega }_i_t)$$
(18)
together with the $`SO(p)`$ generators $`𝒦_{ij}=K_{ij}`$.

The generators of $`SO(q)`$, which is the group of isometries of $`S^q`$, are $`J_{MN}`$, where

$`iJ_{1q}`$ $`=`$ $`_\varphi `$
$`iJ_{1i}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi \left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_i_\theta +\mathrm{cot}\theta _i\right)+\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{tan}\theta \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_i_\varphi `$
$`iJ_{qi}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi \left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_i_\theta +\mathrm{cot}\theta _i\right)\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{tan}\theta \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_i_\varphi `$ (19)
($`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2^2+\mathrm{}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{q1}^2=1`$) the rest of the generators $`J_{ij}`$ ($`i,j=2,\mathrm{},q1`$) being the angular momenta on the sphere $`S^{q2}`$ spanned by $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^i`$. The scalar wave equation is

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}^{q2}\theta }\frac{}{\theta }\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}^{q2}\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }^{(S)}}{\theta }\right)+\frac{1}{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }_\varphi ^2\mathrm{\Psi }^{(S)}+\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{q2}}^2\mathrm{\Psi }^{(S)}=𝒞_S\mathrm{\Psi }^{(S)}$$
(20)
where $`𝒞_S=J(J+q)`$ is the quadratic Casimir for the sphere $`S^q`$,

$$𝒞_S=\frac{1}{2}J^{MN}J_{MN}$$
(21)
The highest-weight state is the eigenfunction of the “Hamiltonian” $`i_\varphi `$ corresponding to the lowest eigenvalue $`J`$,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_0^{(S)}=e^{iJ\varphi }\mathrm{cos}^J\theta $$
(22)
The other states are obtained by acting with the ladder operators

$$J_{+i}=J_{1i}+iJ_{qi}=ie^{i\varphi }\left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_i(_\theta i\mathrm{tan}\theta _\varphi )+\mathrm{cot}\theta _i\right)$$
(23)
The Penrose limit can be obtained as the scaling limit $`R\mathrm{}`$ and $`\rho =r/R`$, $`t=t_{}t_+/R^2`$, $`\theta =u/R^2`$, $`\varphi =t_{}+t_+/R^2`$. The metric in AdS space (5) turns into

$$ds_{AdS}^2=(R^2+r^2)dt^2+dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{p1}^2+o(1/R^2)$$
(24)
and the sphere (7) goes to

$$ds_S^2=(R^2u^2)d\varphi ^2+du^2+u^2d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{q2}^2+o(1/R^2)$$
(25)
The combined space is Cahen-Wallach space in Brinkman form,

$$ds_{AdS}^2+ds_S^2ds_{CW}^2=4dt^+dt^{}(r^2+u^2)(dt^{})^2+dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{p1}^2+du^2+u^2d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{q2}^2$$
(26)
The Killing vectors turn into

$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{R^2}}K_{(p+1)0}`$ $`e_+`$ $`=\frac{1}{2}_+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R}}K_{0i}`$ $`e_i^{}`$ $`=\mathrm{cos}t^{}_{x^i}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}t^{}x_i_+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R}}K_{(p+1)i}`$ $`e_i`$ $`=\mathrm{sin}t^{}_{x^i}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}t^{}x_i_+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{R^2}}J_{1q}`$ $`e_+`$ $`=\frac{1}{2}_+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{R}}J_{1i}`$ $`f_i^{}`$ $`=\mathrm{cos}t^{}_{y^i}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}t^{}y_i_+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{R}}J_{iq}`$ $`f_i`$ $`=\mathrm{sin}t^{}_{y^i}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}t^{}y_i_+`$ (27)
where $`x^i=r\mathrm{\Omega }^i`$ and $`y^i=u\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^i`$ parametrize flat Euclidean spaces. Together with the angular momenta $`K_{ij}`$ and $`J_{ij}`$, they generate the isometries in the Cahen-Wallach space. The broken generators form a Heisenberg algebra

$$[e_i,e_j^{}]=[f_i,f_j^{}]=\delta _{ij}e_+$$
(28)
with central charge $`e_+`$. There is one more Killing vector in this space,

$$\frac{i}{2}(K_{0(p+1)}J_{1q})e_{}=_{}$$
(29)
The ground-state wavefunction

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_0=\mathrm{\Psi }_0^{(\mathrm{AdS})}\times \mathrm{\Psi }_0^{(S)}=e^{i(\mathrm{\Delta }tJ\varphi )}\mathrm{cosh}^\mathrm{\Delta }\rho \mathrm{cos}^J\theta $$
(30)
takes the form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_0e^{i(p_+t^++p_{}t^{})}e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}p_+(r^2+u^2)}$$
(31)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{1}{2}(p_{}+p_+R^2)`$, $`J=\frac{1}{2}(p_{}+p_+R^2)`$ (this notation differs slightly from ). The other states are created by repeatedly acting on $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ with the creation operators $`E_I^+`$, $`F_i^+`$, where

$$E_i^\pm e_i\pm ie_i^{}=e^{\pm it^{}}(_{x^i}\pm \frac{i}{2}x_i_+),F_i^\pm f_i\pm if_i^{}=e^{\pm it^{}}(_{y^i}\pm \frac{i}{2}y_i_+)$$
(32)
The operator $`E_i^\pm `$ is the Penrose limit of the ladder operator $`K_{\pm i}`$ (similarly for $`F_i^\pm `$). Notice that this action changes the dependence of the wavefunction on $`t^{}`$ (shifting $`p_{}`$) but leaves the quantum number $`p_+`$ unchanged. Thus these states span the eigenspace of $`i_+`$ with eigenvalue $`p_+`$,

$$i_+\mathrm{\Psi }=p_+\mathrm{\Psi }$$
(33)
The quadratic Casimir becomes

$`𝒞=\underset{R\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^2}}(𝒞_{\mathrm{AdS}}+𝒞_S)`$ $`=`$ $`2e_+e_{}+(e_i)^2+(e_i^{})^2+(f_i)^2+(f_i^{})^2`$ (34)
$`=`$ $`_+_{}+(\stackrel{}{x}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+\stackrel{}{y}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})_+^2+_x^2+_y^2`$
which is the Laplacian on Cahen-Wallach space.

To see how this is mapped onto the holographic screen (as $`\rho \mathrm{}`$), it is convenient to rotate the generators of the conformal group on the boundary of AdS (18),

$$𝒦_{AB}e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{i}{2}}p_{}t^{}}𝒦_{AB}e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{i}{2}}p_{}t^{}}$$
(35)
We obtain from (18),

$`\widehat{𝒦}_{0(p+1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{R\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^2}}e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{i}{2}}p_{}t^{}}𝒦_{0(p+1)}e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{i}{2}}p_{}t^{}}=\frac{1}{2}p_+`$
$`\widehat{𝒦}_{+i}`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{R\mathrm{}}{lim}e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{i}{2}}p_{}t^{}}𝒦_{+i}e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{i}{2}}p_{}t^{}}=e^{it^{}}\left(_ii\mathrm{\Omega }_i_{}\right)`$
$`\widehat{𝒦}_i`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{R\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^2}}e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{i}{2}}p_{}t^{}}𝒦_ie^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{i}{2}}p_{}t^{}}=p_+\mathrm{\Omega }_ie^{it^{}}`$ (36)
where we used the parametrization $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{1}{2}(p_{}+p_+R^2)`$. These vectors on the boundary of AdS form a Heisenberg algebra 333For a derivation of this algebra in a quantum field theoretical model corresponding to AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times S^5`$, see .

$$[\widehat{𝒦}_i,\widehat{𝒦}_{+j}]=\delta _{ij}p_+$$
(37)
with central charge $`p_+`$. The two sets of generators (S0.Ex7) and (S0.Ex13) act on different spaces which are obtained as different limits of AdS space ($`\rho 0`$ for CW space; $`\rho \mathrm{}`$ for the holographic screen). AdS space provides a natural bridge between the two extremes but one would like to map one space onto the other without invoking the full machinery of AdS space. This map, if it exists, would establish the existence of a “holographic screen” on CW space.

To tackle this issue, let us restrict attention to a subspace of the Hilbert space on CW space that can be mapped onto the Hilbert space on the holographic screen of AdS space in the Penrose limit. A convenient restriction is provided by the constraint

$$\widehat{𝒟}\mathrm{\Psi }=0,\widehat{𝒟}=x^i\frac{}{x^i}i_{}+\frac{i}{2}x^ix_i_+$$
(38)
which commutes with all creation operators (32) as well as the momentum $`i_+`$ (cf. eq. (33)),

$$[\widehat{𝒟},E_i^+]=[\widehat{𝒟},F_i^+]=[\widehat{𝒟},i_+]=0$$
(39)
It also annihilates the vacuum state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ (eq. (31)) for $`p_{}=0`$. Thus, it restricts the Hilbert space to the sector which is spanned by all states created by a string of $`E_i^+,F_i^+`$ (eq. (32)) acting on the $`p_{}=0`$ vacuum state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ (eq. (31)). Other sectors may be easily obtained by rotating as in (35) which amounts to selecting a different vacuum state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ with $`p_{}0`$.

Once (38) is imposed as a constraint, the system is determined by data specified on a hypersurface in CW space. This hypersurface ought to intersect each orbit of $`\widehat{𝒟}`$ precisely once. In this sense, transformations generated by $`\widehat{𝒟}`$ are similar to gauge transformations and the choice of hypersurface amounts to a choice of “gauge.” A simple choice (gauge-fixing condition) is the cylinder

$$\widehat{\chi }x^ix_i^2=0$$
(40)
The parameter $``$ is arbitrary. The two constraints (38) and (40) are second class constraints necessitating the replacement of Poisson brackets by Dirac brackets,

$$\{𝒜,\}_D=\{𝒜,\}_P\frac{1}{\{\widehat{\chi },\widehat{𝒟}\}_P}\left(\{𝒜,\widehat{\chi }\}_P\{\widehat{𝒟},\}_P\{𝒜,\widehat{𝒟}\}_P\{\widehat{\chi },\}_P\right)$$
(41)
where $`\{\widehat{\chi },\widehat{𝒟}\}_P=2^2`$. Equivalently, one may parametrize the coordinates appropriately on the hypersurface (40) and compute the modification of the algebra of isometries on the CW space by expressing the Killing vectors in terms of the reduced set of coordinates. The Heisenberg algebra (28) is modified to

$`[E_i^+,E_j^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`i\delta _{ij}_++{\displaystyle \frac{2}{^2}}x_i\left\{\left(\delta _{jk}{\displaystyle \frac{x_jx_k}{^2}}\right)_k+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{^2}}x_j_{}\right\}`$
$`[E_i^+,E_j^+]`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`[E_i^{},E_j^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{^2}}e^{2it^{}}(x_i_jx_j_i)`$ (42)
In the limit $`\mathrm{}`$, the modification vanishes and the algebra (S0.Ex15) reduces to a Heisenberg algebra again. Therefore, $``$ plays a role similar to the AdS parameter $`R`$ in taking the Penrose limit. To see how this happens explicitly, we may solve the “gauge-fixing” condition (40), and parametrize the hypersurface,

$$x^i=\mathrm{\Omega }^i$$
(43)
We may then use the parametrization of the coordinates to express the conjugate momenta on the hypersurface,

$$\frac{}{x^i}=i\mathrm{\Omega }_i(_{}\frac{1}{2}^2_+)+_i$$
(44)
where we used the constraint (38) to write $`_r=i(_{}\frac{1}{2}^2_+)`$. The CW Killing vectors (32) may be written as

$$E_i^\pm =\frac{1}{}e^{\pm it^{}}\left(i\mathrm{\Omega }_i(_{}\frac{1}{2}^2_+)+_i\pm \frac{i}{2}^2\mathrm{\Omega }_i_+\right)$$
(45)
and $`F_i^\pm `$ remain unchanged. Using the explicit form (45), one may verify that these vectors satisfy the modified algebra (S0.Ex15). These vectors bare a striking resemblance to the generators of the conformal group on the holographic screen (18). In the limit $`\mathrm{}`$, they turn into the operators

$`_i^+`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{\mathrm{}}{lim}E_i^+=e^{it^{}}(_ii\mathrm{\Omega }_i_{})`$
$`_i^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{}}E_i^{}=ie^{it^{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_i_+`$ (46)
in agreement with the generators $`\widehat{𝒦}_{\pm i}`$ of the Heisenberg algebra (S0.Ex13) on the boundary of AdS in the scaling limit $`R\mathrm{}`$.

To summarize, I have recovered the algebra on the holographic screen in the scaling limit $`R\mathrm{}`$ (S0.Ex13) directly on the CW space, without making use of the AdS space. This was done by restricting the Hilbert space using the constraint (38). After imposing the constraint, the system was determined by data specified on a hypersurface which was chosen so as to intersect each orbit of transformations precisely once. In this sense, the transformations generated by the constraint (38) are similar to gauge transformations (albeit rigid) and the choice of hypersurface can be viewed as a “gauge-fixing” condition. The classical Poisson brackets ought to be replaced by Dirac brackets which are then promoted to commutators upon quantization. By adopting the gauge (40), a surface was selected in Cahen-Wallach space which in the scaling limit $`\mathrm{}`$ could be mapped onto the holographic screen (boundary of AdS) in the Penrose limit. I showed that the resulting algebra of the CW Killing vectors (S0.Ex17) agrees with the corresponding algebra (S0.Ex13) on the holographic screen. This provides a way of identifying a “holographic screen” on CW space, even though no holographic principle, similar to the one in AdS space, exists for CW space.


text:
# Noncommutative Symplectic Geometry of the Endomorphism Algebra of a Vector Bundle

## 1. Introduction

In this work we describe a noncommutative (algebraic) approach to such geometrical objects as degenerate Poisson structures, Symplectic foliations for Poisson structures, symplectic submanifolds and quotient manifolds. We generalize these notions for the case of noncommutative differential calculus for an associative algebra. Our constructions are based on the definitions of noncommutative submanifold and quotient manifold given in the work  of Thierry Masson.

In Section 2 we give a brief overview of the definitions and some facts from the theory of noncommutative submanifolds and quotient manifolds. Also, we introduce a notion of *locally proper* submanifold algebra which we need further as a noncommutative analogue of a submanifold with $`\text{codim}>0`$.

Section 3 is devoted to the demonstration and investigation of noncommutative submanifolds and quotient manifolds for the endomorphism algebra of a finite-dimensional complex vector bundle. There are several works devoted to the noncommutative geometry of this algebra (e.g., , ). Our purpose, in this section, is to give some description of submanifold ideals for this algebra.

Section 4 is devoted to degenerate Poisson structures on general associative algebra $`A`$. We introduce the definition of nondegenerate/degenerate Poisson structure and the notion of locally proper Poisson ideal in $`A`$. Such ideal is a noncommutative analogue of Poisson submanifold and when it is maximal it can be considered as a noncommutative symplectic leaf. The existence of a locally proper Poisson ideal is some kind of indicator of degeneracy of a Poisson structure. We study the relation between Poisson structures and symplectic structures which is rather different from the classical case.

In Section 5 we apply the investigation and results of the previous sections to the endomorphism algebra of a vector bundle: $`End(E)`$. The main result of this section is the full description of the family of Poisson structures on the endomorphism algebra of a vector bundle, with $`dim(fiber)2`$: in this case *any Poisson structure on $`End(E)`$ is of the form $`\{\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Psi }\}=\lambda [\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Psi }]`$, where $`\lambda `$ is a smooth function on the base manifold of the vector bundle*. The proof is mostly based on the fact that any Poisson structure on the matrix algebra is of the form $`\{a,b\}=k[a,b]`$ for some constant number $`k`$ (the proof of this statement is also given in this section), and the fact that the multiplicative commutator $`[End(E),End(E)]`$ generates the entire algebra $`End(E)`$. It is worth to notice the general proposition presented in this section which states that for any such algebra $`A`$, the commutator of which generates the entire algebra $`A`$ and any derivation vanishing on the center is inner, a Hamiltonian map is always a $`Z(A)`$-module homomorphism from $`A`$ to $`A/Z(A)`$, where $`Z(A)`$ denotes the center of $`A`$. It seems that the center of an associative algebra plays very important role for Poisson structures on this algebra and somehow “fixes” a Poisson structure. In this section we give also the description of the symplectic leaves (in the noncommutative sense) for the algebra $`End(E)`$.

## 2. Submanifolds and Quotient Manifolds in Noncommutative Differential Calculus: a Brief Review

In this section we give a brief overview of definitions and facts from the theory of noncommutative submanifolds and quotient manifolds in the derivation based noncommutative differential calculus, which is based on the work of Thierry Masson (see ).

Let $`A`$ be an associative unital complex or real algebra. Let $`I`$ be a two-side ideal in in $`A`$. We denote by $`S`$ the quotient algebra $`A/I`$ and by $`p`$ the quotient map from $`A`$ to $`S`$. We have the following short exact sequence of algebra homomorphisms

(1)
$$0IA\stackrel{p}{}S0$$

Let $`Der(A)`$ be the Lie algebra of derivations of $`A`$. Introduce the following two Lie subalgebras of $`Der(A)`$

$$Der(A,I)=\left\{XDer(A)|X(I)I\right\}$$

and its subalgebra

$$Der(A,I)_0=\left\{XDer(A)|X(A)I\right\}$$

The short exact sequence 1 induces the following exact sequence of Lie algebra homomorphisms

$$0Der(A,I)_0Der(A,I)\stackrel{\pi }{}Der(S)$$

This exact sequence, in general, is not necessarily short.

###### Definition 1 (see ).

The quotient algebra $`S=A/I`$ is said to be a submanifold algebra for $`A`$ if the homomorphism $`\pi :Der(A,I)Der(S)`$ is an epimorphism.

In other words, in this case we have the short exact sequence

(2)
$$0Der(A,I)_0Der(A,I)\stackrel{\pi }{}Der(S)0$$

The ideal $`I`$ is called the *constraint ideal* for the submanifold algebra $`S`$. Sometimes, for brevity, we shall call $`I`$ a *submanifold ideal*.

The classical geometric meaning of the Lie algebra $`Der(A,I)`$ is the following: it is the set of such vector fields on a smooth manifold $`M`$ which are tangent to a submanifold $`NM`$. It is clear that if the submanifold $`N`$ is such that for each point $`xN`$ we have $`T_x(N)=T_x(M)`$, then $`Der(A,I)=Der(A)`$. This is the case when $`\text{codim}(N)=0`$. For example, if $`N`$ is an open subset in $`M`$. Translating this situation on the algebraic language, we introduce the following

###### Definition 2.

We call a submanifold algebra locally proper if $`Der(A,I)`$ is a proper subalgebra of $`Der(A)`$, i.e, $`Der(A,I)Der(A)`$.

Now, let us recall the noncommutative generalization of the notion of quotient manifold. Let $`B`$ be a subalgebra of $`A`$. Define the following two Lie subalgebras of $`Der(A)`$

$$T(A,B)=\left\{XDer(A)|X(B)B\right\}$$

and its subalgebra

$$V(A,B)=\left\{XDer(A)|X(B)=\{0\}\right\}$$

$`V(A,B)`$ is a Lie algebra ideal in $`T(A,B)`$. Moreover, $`V(A,B)`$ is the kernel of the Lie algebra homomorphism $`\rho :T(A,B)Der(B)`$, which is just the restriction map.

Further, for any algebra $`A`$, we denote by $`Z(A)`$ the center of $`A`$.

###### Definition 3 (see ).

The subalgebra $`B`$ in $`A`$ is said to be a quotient manifold algebra if the following three conditions are satisfied

* $`Z(B)=BZ(A)`$
* the restriction map $`\rho :T(A,B)Der(B)`$ is an epimorphism
* $`B=\{bA|X(b)=0,XV(A,B)\}`$

## 3. Submanifolds and Quotient Manifolds for the Endomorphism Algebra of a Vector Bundle

In this section we investigate the endomorphism algebra of a finite-dimensional vector bundle in the framework of the definitions and notions of the previous section.

Let $`\pi :EM`$ be a finite-dimensional complex (or real) vector bundle over a smooth manifold $`M`$. We denote the algebra of endomorphisms of this bundle by $`End(E)`$. Any element $`\mathrm{\Phi }End(E)`$ can be considered as a section of the bundle of endomorphisms. For any point $`xM`$ we denote by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_x`$ the value of this section at this point: $`\mathrm{\Phi }_xEnd(E_x)`$, where $`E_x=\pi ^1(x)`$. If $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is an element of the center of the algebra $`End(E)`$, then for any $`xM`$, the operator $`\mathrm{\Phi }_x`$ is in the center of the algebra $`End(E_x)`$. But the algebra $`End(E_x)`$ is isomorphic to the algebra of $`n\times n`$ matrices, where $`n=dim(E_x)`$. The center of the matrix algebra is $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$, where $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ denotes the identity matrix. Hence we have that the center of the algebra $`End(E)`$ is the set

$$\left\{f\mathrm{𝟏}|fC^{\mathrm{}}(M)\right\}Z(End(E))$$

For any associative algebra $`A`$ its center is invariant under the action of any derivation of this algebra

$$\begin{array}{c}XDer(A),zZ(A),aA:za=azX(za)=X(az)\\ \\ X(z)a+zX(a)=X(a)z+aX(z)X(z)a=aX(z)X(z)Z(A)\end{array}$$

Therefore we have the Lie algebra homomorphism

$$\rho :Der(A)Der(Z(A))$$

The Lie algebra of inner derivations of $`A`$ is defined as

$$Int(A)=\{ad(a)=[a,]:AA|aA\}$$

It is clear that $`Int(A)\mathrm{ker}\rho `$. Therefore, in the case when $`\rho `$ is an epimorphism and $`\mathrm{ker}\rho =Int(A)`$, we have that $`Z(A)`$ is a quotient manifold algebra for $`A`$ (see ).

Consider the above construction for the case when $`A=End(E)`$. In this case $`Der(Z(End(A)))=Der(C^{\mathrm{}}(M))=𝔉(M)`$, where $`𝔉(M)`$ denotes the Lie algebra of vector fields on the manifold $`M`$. Hence, we have a homomorphism

$$\rho :Der(End(E))𝔉(M)$$

###### Lemma 1.

The kernel of the homomorphism $`\rho :Der(End(E))𝔉(M)`$ is the Lie algebra of inner derivations of $`End(E)`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`X\mathrm{ker}\rho `$, then for any $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }End(E)`$, we have

$$X(f\mathrm{\Phi })=fX(\mathrm{\Phi })$$

which implies that $`X:End(E)End(E)`$ is a homomorphism of $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$-modules. Therefore, $`X`$ corresponds to some homomorphism of the endomorphism bundle. Hence, its action is pointwise

$$X_m:End(E_m)End(E_m),mM$$

But as $`End(E_m)`$ is isomorphic to the matrix algebra, it has only inner derivations. And so $`X`$ is an inner derivation. ∎

We denote by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)`$ the space of smooth sections of the vector bundle $`(E,M,\pi )`$. Let

$$:\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)\mathrm{\Gamma }(T^{}(M))\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)$$

be a connection (covariant derivation) on the vector bundle $`E`$. For any $`X𝔉(M)`$ define an operator $`D_X:End(E)End(E)`$ as:

(3)
$$D_X(\mathrm{\Phi })(s)=_X(\mathrm{\Phi }(s))\mathrm{\Phi }(_X(s)),\mathrm{\Phi }End(E)\text{ and }s\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)$$

###### Lemma 2.

For any $`X𝔉(M)`$ the operator $`D_X`$ is a derivation of the algebra $`End(E)`$ and $`\rho (D_X)=X`$.

###### Proof.

For any pair of endomorphisms $`\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Psi }End(E)`$ and $`s\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)`$ we have the following

$$\begin{array}{c}D_X(\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi })(s)=_X(\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{\Psi }(s)))(\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi })(_X(s))=\hfill \\ \\ =D_X(\mathrm{\Phi })(\mathrm{\Psi }(s))+\mathrm{\Phi }(_X(\mathrm{\Psi }(s)))(\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi })(_X(s))=\hfill \\ \\ =D_X(\mathrm{\Phi })(\mathrm{\Psi }(s))+\mathrm{\Phi }(D_X(\mathrm{\Psi })(s)+\mathrm{\Psi }(_X(s)))(\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi })(_X(s))=\hfill \\ \\ =(D_X(\mathrm{\Phi })\mathrm{\Psi }+\mathrm{\Phi }D_X(\mathrm{\Psi }))(s)\hfill \end{array}$$

which implies that for any vector field $`X𝔉(M)`$, the operator $`D_X`$ on $`End(E)`$ is a derivation.

By definition of $`\rho `$, we have that for any $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$

$$(\rho (D_X))(f\mathrm{𝟏})s=_X(fs)f_X(s)=X(f)s$$

which implies that $`\rho (D_X)=X,X𝔉(M)`$. ∎

In fact, $`D`$ is the associated connection to $``$ on the fiber bundle $`End(E)`$ (see ). It follows from the above lemma that $`\rho `$ is an epimorphism and this fact together with the previous lemma implies that *the center of the endomorphism algebra $`End(E)`$, which is $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M)\mathrm{𝟏}`$, is a quotient manifold algebra for $`End(E)`$*.

Hence, we have a short exact sequence of Lie algebra homomorphisms

(4)
$$0Int(End(E))Der(End(E))\stackrel{\rho }{}Der(C^{\mathrm{}}(M))𝔉(M)0$$

and the mapping $`𝔉(M)XD_XDer(End(E))`$ gives a splitting of this short exact sequence, but it is a splitting of the short exact sequence of $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$-module homomorphisms, because $`XD_X`$ is a Lie algebra homomorphism only when the connection $``$ is flat.

Further, in this section, we study the submanifold algebras for the algebra $`End(E)`$.

If $`BA`$ is a quotient manifold algebra for an associative algebra $`A`$, and $`IB`$ is a submanifold ideal in $`B`$, then a natural candidate for a submanifold ideal in $`A`$ is the two-side ideal in $`A`$ generated by $`I`$. In general, such ideal is not always submanifold ideal, but this method gives a positive result in some “good” cases. Let $`N`$ ($`N=\mathrm{}`$) be a compact submanifold of $`M`$ and $`I_N`$ be the ideal in $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ consisting of the functions vanishing on $`N`$. The ideal in $`End(E)`$ generated by $`I_N`$ coincides with the set of sections of the endomorphisms bundle vanishing on $`N`$. The quotient algebra $`End(E)/(I_NEnd(E))`$ is canonically isomorphic to $`End(E_N)`$, where $`E_N`$ denotes the restriction bundle of the vector bundle $`E`$ to the submanifold $`N`$: $`\pi _N=\pi |_N:E_N=\pi ^1(N)N`$. The quotient map

$$p:End(E)End(V_n)=End(E)/(I_NEnd(E))$$

is just the restriction map, which maps any endomorphism of $`\mathrm{\Phi }:EE`$ to its restriction $`\mathrm{\Phi }_N:E_NE_N`$.

Let $``$ be a connection on $`E`$. If $`X𝔉(M)`$ is such that $`X(I_N)I_N`$, then the ideal $`I_NEnd(E)`$ is invariant for the operator $`D_X`$, because:

$$D_X(f\mathrm{\Phi })=X(f)\mathrm{\Phi }+fD_X(\mathrm{\Phi })I_NEnd(E),fI_N\text{ and }\mathrm{\Phi }End(E)$$

Therefore, the connection $``$ defines a splitting of the exact sequence

$$0Int(End(E_N))Der(End(E_N))\stackrel{\pi _N}{}𝔉(N)0$$

This implies that any derivation $`U_NDer(End(E_N))`$ can be represented as

$$U_N=ad(\mathrm{\Phi }_N)+D_{X_N}$$

where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_NEnd(E_N)`$ and $`X_N𝔉(N)`$. Let $`X𝔉(M)`$ be an extension of $`X_N`$ and and $`\mathrm{\Phi }End(E)`$ be an extension of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_N`$, then we obtain that the derivation $`U=ad(\mathrm{\Phi })+D_XDer(End(E))`$ is an extension of the derivation $`U_N`$. Hence the derivations of $`End(E_N)=End(E)/(I_NEnd(E))`$ are “covered” by the derivations of $`End(E)`$, which implies that $`End(E_N)`$ is a submanifold algebra for $`End(E)`$, and the ideal $`I_NEnd(E)`$ is the corresponding constraint ideal. Moreover, we have the following

###### Proposition 3.

Let $`I`$ be an ideal in the algebra $`End(E)`$ and $`I^{}`$ be $`I(C^{\mathrm{}}(M)\mathrm{𝟏})`$. If $`I^{}`$ is a submanifold ideal in the algebra $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M)\mathrm{𝟏}`$, corresponding to some compact closed submanifold $`N`$, then $`I`$ is a submanifold ideal in the algebra $`End(E)`$

###### Proof.

By assumption $`I^{}=I_N=\left\{fC^{\mathrm{}}(M)|f(N)=\{0\}\right\}`$. Consider the ideal in $`End(E)`$ generated by $`I_N`$. As it was mentioned above, this ideal coincides with the set of such endomorphisms $`\mathrm{\Phi }End(E)`$ that $`\mathrm{\Phi }|_N0`$. As $`I_N\mathrm{𝟏}I`$, we have that $`I_NEnd(E)I`$. For any $`xN`$, consider the evaluation map

$$\delta _x:End(E)End(E_x),\delta _x(\mathrm{\Phi })=\mathrm{\Phi }(x)$$

As $`\delta _x`$ is an epimorphism, the image of the ideal $`I`$ by $`\delta _x`$ is an ideal in $`End(E_x)`$. But any ideal in $`End(E_x)`$ is the trivial one – $`\{0\}`$, or the entire $`End(E_x)`$. If $`\delta _x(I)=End(E_x)`$, then there is an endomorphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }I`$, such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_x=1`$. Which implies that, there exists such neighborhood $`U`$ of the point $`x`$ in $`M`$, that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_u`$ is invertible for each $`uU`$. Consider two smaller neighborhoods of $`x`$: $`WVU`$, and a function $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$, such that $`f(W)=\{1\}`$ and $`f(M\backslash V)=\{0\}`$. Construct the endomorphism

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\{\begin{array}{cc}f\mathrm{\Phi }^1\text{ on }V\hfill & \\ 0\text{ on }M\backslash V\hfill & \end{array}$$

We have that $`\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi }=f\mathrm{𝟏}`$. But as $`\mathrm{\Phi }I`$, we obtain that $`f\mathrm{𝟏}I`$ which contradicts to the assumption that $`(C^{\mathrm{}}(M)\mathrm{𝟏})I=I_N`$, because $`f(x)=1fI_N`$. Hence, the assumption that $`\delta (I)=End(E_x)`$ is false. Therefore for any $`\mathrm{\Phi }I`$ and any $`xN`$, the value $`\mathrm{\Phi }_x`$ is $`0`$. This, itself, implies that $`II_NEnd(E)`$. This together with $`I_NEnd(E)I`$, gives the equality $`I=I_NEnd(E)`$. We obtain that any such ideal $`IEnd(E)`$ that $`IC^{\mathrm{}}(M)\mathrm{𝟏}`$ is a submanifold ideal in $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M)\mathrm{𝟏}`$, for some compact, closed submanifold $`N`$, is of the form $`I=I_NEnd(E)`$. But as we have shown, such ideals in $`End(E)`$ are submanifold ideals. ∎

Problem: *Is any submanifold ideal in the algebra $`End(E)`$ of the form $`IEnd(E)`$ where $`I`$ is a submanifold ideal in $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$?*

###### Definition 4.

For any ideal $`IEnd(E)`$, we call the set of points

$$M_I=\{xM|\mathrm{\Phi }_x=0,\mathrm{\Phi }I\}$$

the $`0`$-set of the ideal $`I`$.

###### Proposition 4.

If an ideal $`IEnd(E)`$ is such that $`M_I=\mathrm{}`$ and the manifold $`M`$ is locally compact, then $`I=End(E)`$.

###### Proof.

For any point $`xM`$, consider the evaluation map

$$\delta _x:End(E)End(E_x),\delta _x(\mathrm{\Phi })=\mathrm{\Phi }_x$$

This map is an epimorphism of associative algebras. Therefore $`\delta _x(I)`$ is an ideal in $`End(E_x)`$, which can be only $`0`$ or the entire $`End(E_x)`$. By assumption, the $`0`$-set of the ideal $`I`$ is empty. Therefore $`\delta _x(I)=End(E_x)`$. Let $`\{\mathrm{\Phi }_x^1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Phi }_x^m\}`$ be any basis of the complex vector space $`End(E_x)`$, and $`\{\mathrm{\Phi }^1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Phi }^m\}`$ be such elements from $`I`$, that $`\delta _x(\mathrm{\Phi }^i)=\mathrm{\Phi }_x^i,i=1,\mathrm{},m`$. As the system $`\{\mathrm{\Phi }^1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Phi }^m\}`$ is linearly independent at the point $`x`$, there exists such neighborhood $`U`$ of $`x`$ in $`M`$, that the system $`\{\mathrm{\Phi }^1|_U,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Phi }^m|_U\}`$ is also linearly independent over $`C^{\mathrm{}}(U)`$ and therefore forms a basis for $`End(E_U)`$. Let $`U_k=M`$ be such locally finite covering of $`M`$ that for any $`U_k`$ we have a system $`\{\mathrm{\Phi }_k^1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Phi }_k^m\}I`$ such that $`\{\mathrm{\Phi }_k^1|_{U_k},\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Phi }_k^m|_{U_k}\}`$ is a local basis of $`End(E_{U_k})`$. For any $`\mathrm{\Psi }End(E)`$, we have: $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{U_k}=\underset{i}{}f_i^k\mathrm{\Phi }_k^i|_{U_k}`$, where $`\{f_1^k,\mathrm{},f_m^k\}C^{\mathrm{}}(U_k)`$. Let $`\left\{\phi _k\right\}`$ be a partition of unity corresponding to the covering $`\left\{U_k\right\}`$. Consider the endomorphisms

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_k=\underset{i}{}\stackrel{~}{f}_i^k\mathrm{\Psi }_k^i,\text{ where }\stackrel{~}{f}_i^k=\{\begin{array}{cc}\phi _kf_i^k\hfill & \text{ on }U_k\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ on }M\backslash U_k\hfill \end{array}$$

As $`\mathrm{\Phi }_k^iI`$, we have that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_kI`$, but on the other hand: $`\underset{k}{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_k=\mathrm{\Psi }`$. Hence, we obtain that $`\mathrm{\Psi }I`$. ∎

It follows from the definition of the $`0`$-set, that if $`I_1I_2`$ then $`M_{I_2}M_{I_1}`$. Therefore for any subset $`SM`$, the ideal $`I_SEnd(E)`$, where

$$I_S=\{fC^{\mathrm{}}(M)|f|_S0\}$$

is the greatest ideal with 0-set equal to $`S`$. From this follows that maximal proper ideals in $`End(E)`$ are the ideals of the form $`I_xEnd(E)\left\{\mathrm{\Phi }End(E)|\mathrm{\Phi }_x=0\right\}`$, where $`x`$ is a point in $`M`$. As it was mentioned, such ideal is a submanifold ideal and the corresponding submanifold algeba is $`End(E)/(I_xEnd(E))End(E_x)`$ (see ).

## 4. Degenerate Poisson Structures in Noncommutative Geometry

As before, let $`A`$ be a unital associative complex or real algebra. A Poisson structure on $`A`$ is defined as a Lie bracket $`\{,\}:AAA`$, which is a biderivation (see , ):

$$\{a,bc\}=b\{a,c\}+\{a,b\}c,\{a,b,c\}A$$

The pair $`(A,\{,\})`$ is called a Poisson algebra. For any element $`aA`$, the derivation $`Ax\{a,x\}A`$ is called the Hamiltonian derivation (or just Hamiltonian) corresponding to the element $`a`$ and we denote this derivation by $`ham(a)`$.

One method of defining a Poisson structure, which has its well-known classical analogue, is the method which uses a symplectic form (see , ). Let $`\omega `$ be a 2-form in the derivation-based differential calculus for $`A`$; i.e., $`\omega `$ is a $`Z(A)`$-bilinear antisymmetric mapping: $`\omega :Der(A)\times Der(A)A`$. Such form is said to be *nondegenerate* if for any element $`aA`$, there exists a derivation $`X_aDer(A)`$ such that $`i_{X_a}\omega =da`$. The 1-forms $`i_{X_a}\omega \text{ and }da:Der(A)A`$ are defined as $`(da)(X)=X(a)\text{ and }(i_{X_a}\omega )(X)=\omega (X_a,X),XDer(A)`$. It is easy to verify that if the form $`\omega `$ is nondegenerate then the mapping $`Xi_X\omega `$ from $`Der(A)`$ to the space of 1-forms is a monomorphism.

After this, we can state that if $`\omega `$ is nondegenerate then for any $`aA`$, the derivation $`X_a`$ is unique. For a nondegenerate $`\omega `$ define an antisymmetric bracket on $`A`$: $`\{a,b\}=\omega (X_a,X_b)`$. it can be verified by direct calculations that this bracket is a biderivation and for any $`a,b,cA`$ we have (see ):

$$\{\{a,b\},c\}+\{\{b,c\},a\}+\{\{c,a\},b\}=(d\omega )(X_a,X_b,X_c)$$

Therefore if the form $`\omega `$ is closed, then the Jacoby identity for this bracket is true and so the pair $`(A,\{,\})`$ is a Poisson algebra. In this case the derivation $`X_a`$ is the same as the Hamiltonian corresponding to $`a`$. When the $`Z(A)`$-module generated by the set $`\left\{ham(a)|aA\right\}`$ coincides with the entire space $`Der(A)`$, the two conditions: Jacoby identity for $`\{,\}`$ and $`d\omega =0`$, are equivalent. A nondegenerate and closed 2-form $`\omega `$ is called a *symplectic form* and the pair $`(A,\omega )`$ is called the corresponding *symplectic structure*, or symplectic algebra. Let us formulate a noncommutative analogue of the notion of degenerate/nondegenerate Poisson structure. The classical situation, when $`A`$ is an algebra of $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-class functions on some $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-class manifold, dictates the following

###### Definition 5.

A poisson bracket on an associative algebra $`A`$ is said to be nondegenerate if and only if the $`Z(A)`$-submodule generated by the Hamiltonian derivations in $`Der(A)`$ coincides with the entire $`Der(A)`$. Otherwise, the Poisson structure is said to be degenerate.

A noncommutative generalization of a symplectic leaf for a degenerate Poisson structure can be obtained by using of the notion of Poisson ideal.

###### Definition 6.

A two-side ideal $`I`$ in $`A`$ is said to be a Poisson ideal if $`\{I,A\}I`$, i.e., $`I`$ is also a Lie algebra ideal. A Poisson ideal is said to be locally proper if $`Der(A,I)=\left\{XDer(A)|X(I)I\right\}Der(A)`$.

If $`I`$ is also a submanifold ideal in $`A`$ (i.e., the mapping $`\pi :Der(A,I)Der(A/I)`$ is an epimorphism) then the submanifold algebra $`A/I`$ can be regarded as a noncommutative analogue of a symplectic submanifold of a Poisson manifold.

Using the above definition we formulate the following criteria for the degeneracy of a Poisson structure on $`A`$.

###### Proposition 5.

If a Poisson algebra $`A`$ contains at least one locally proper Poisson ideal then the Poisson structure on $`A`$ is degenerate.

###### Proof.

The $`Z(A)`$-module generated by $`ham(A)`$ is the set of the elements of the form $`\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}z_iham(a_i)`$ for some $`z_iZ(A),a_iA,1ik`$. It follows from the definition of locally proper Poisson ideal, that there exists at least one $`XDer(A)`$, such that $`X(I)I`$. If $`XZ(A)ham(A)`$ then $`X=z_iham(a_i)`$ and for any $`uI`$ we have $`X(u)=z_i\underset{I}{\underset{}{\{a_i,u\}}}I`$. This contradicts to the condition $`X(I)I`$. Therefore the module $`Z(A)ham(A)`$ does not coincide with the entire $`Der(A)`$ and hence, the Poisson bracket $`\{,\}`$ is degenerate in the sense of the definition 5. ∎

In the classical case, when $`A=C^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$, the above criteria is a necessary and sufficient condition, because if a Poisson structure on a smooth manifold $`M`$ is degenerate, then we have a foliation of $`M`$ on symplectic submanifolds. For any such submanifold $`N`$, with $`\text{codim}>0`$, the ideal of the smooth functions on $`M`$ vanishing on $`N`$ is a locally proper Poisson ideal in the Poisson algebra $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$.

In the classical differential calculus there is a one-to-one correspondence, between the family of nondegenerate Poisson structures on $`M`$ and the family of symplectic forms on $`M`$. In the noncommutative case we have the following

###### Proposition 6.

Let $`\{,\}`$ be a nondegenerate Poisson bracket on an associative algebra $`A`$ (i.e., $`Z(A)ham(A)=Der(A)`$). Then there exists a symplectic form $`\omega `$ such that the Poisson bracket on $`A`$ defined by $`\omega `$ coincides with $`\{,\}`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`X,YDer(A)`$. As the Poisson bracket $`\{,\}`$ is nondegenerate, by the definition 5 we have $`Z(A)ham(A)=Der(A)`$. Therefore we have $`X=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}u_iham(x_i)`$ and $`Y=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}v_jham(y_j)`$, for some $`\{u_1,\mathrm{},u_m,v_1,\mathrm{},v_n\}Z(A)`$ and $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_m,y_1,\mathrm{},y_n\}A`$. Define the value of a form $`\omega `$ on the pair of vectors $`(X,Y)`$ as $`\omega (X,Y)=\underset{i,j}{}u_iv_j\{x_i,y_j\}`$. Let us verify that the right side of the equality is independent of the choice of the representations of $`X`$ and $`Y`$. Let $`X=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}u_i^{}ham(x_i^{})`$ be another representation of $`X`$. Then for any $`1jn`$ we have

$$\underset{i}{}u_i^{}v_j\{x_i^{},y_j\}=\underset{i}{}v_ju_i^{}\{x_i^{},y_j\}=v_jX(y_j)=\underset{p}{}v_ju_p\{x_p,y_j\}$$

which implies the independence of the expression $`\underset{i,j}{}u_iv_j\{x_i,y_j\}`$ from the representation of $`X`$. As the form $`\omega `$ is antisymmetric, from this follows the independence from the representation of $`Y`$.
The identity of the bracket defined by the form $`\omega `$ and the original one is a tautological result of the definition.
The form is closed because of the equality

$$(d\omega )(ham(a),ham(b)ham(c)))=\{\{a,b\},c\}+\{\{b,c\},a\}+\{\{c,a\},b\}$$

and the assumption that $`Z(A)ham(A)=Der(A)`$. ∎

When $`A=C^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ for some smooth manifold $`M`$, the converse is also true: a Poisson structure defined by some symplectic form is nondegenerate in the sense that $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M)ham(M)=𝔉(M)`$, where $`ham(M)`$ denotes the space of Hamiltonian vector fields on $`M`$.

## 5. Poisson Structures for the Endomorphism Algebra of a Vector Bundle

In this section we describe the family of all Poisson structures and the noncommutative analogue of the corresponding symplectic foliations for the endomorphism algebra of a finite-dimensional vector bundle. We start from the description of Poisson structures on the matrix algebra.

For $`n`$, let $`M_n()`$ be the algebra of $`n\times n`$ complex matrices. As on any associative algebra, there is a natural Poisson structure on $`M_n()`$ defined by the multiplicative commutator: $`\{a,b\}=[a,b]=abba`$. This Poisson structure is nondegenerate because the Hamiltonian corresponding to an element $`aM_n()`$ is the inner derivation: $`ham(a)=ad(a)=[a,]`$, and all the derivations of the algebra $`M_n()`$ are inner: $`Der(M_n())=Int(M_n())`$.

We have a family of Poisson structures on $`M_n()`$ parametrized by $``$:

$$\{a,b\}_k=k[a,b],k$$

All of these brackets are nondegenerate except of the case when $`k=0`$.

###### Proposition 7.

Any Poisson bracket on the algebra $`M_n()`$ is of the form

$$\{a,b\}_k=k[a,b],a,bM_n()$$

for some $`k`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`pM_n()`$ be a projector: $`p^2=p`$. There is a one-to-one correspondence between the subset of all projectors in $`M_n()`$ and the set of decompositions of the vector space $`^n`$ into a pair of complementar subspaces: $`^n=XY`$. For such decomposition the corresponding projector $`p`$ is the projection operator on $`X`$ along $`Y`$ and the operator $`1p`$ is the projection operator on $`Y`$ along $`X`$. As the Poisson structure is a biderivation, for any $`aM_n()`$ we have the following

$$\{a,p\}=\{a,p^2\}=p\{a,p\}+\{a,p\}p\{a,p\}(1p)=p\{a,p\}$$

Consider the decomposition of $`^n`$, corresponding to the projector $`p`$:

$$^n=\text{Im}(p)\text{Im}(1p)$$

If $`x\text{Im}(p)`$, then we have

$$p\{a,p\}x=\{a,p\}\underset{0}{\underset{}{(1p)x}}=0\{a,p\}x\text{Im}(1p)$$

If $`y\text{Im}(1p)`$, then

$$\{a,p\}\underset{y}{\underset{}{(1p)y}}=p\{a,p\}yp\{a,p\}y=\{a,p\}y\{a,p\}y\text{Im}(p)$$

From these we obtain that the operator $`\{a,p\}`$ maps the subspace $`\text{Im}(p)`$ into the subspace $`\text{Im}(1p)`$ and the subspace $`\text{Im}(1p)`$ into $`\text{Im}(p)`$. This implies that for any $`aM_n()`$, the decomposition of the operator $`\{p,a\}`$, corresponding to the decomposition $`^n=\text{Im}(p)\text{Im}(1p)`$ is of the form

$$\{p,a\}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& b_1\\ b_2& 0\end{array}\right)$$

for some $`b_1:\text{Im}(1p)\text{Im}(p)`$ and $`b_2:\text{Im}(p)\text{Im}(1p)`$. By definition of a Hamiltonian derivation and because all derivations of $`M_n()`$ are inner, we have

$$\{p,a\}=ham(p)a=[ham(p),a],aM_n()$$

Let $`ham(p)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}p_1& q_1\\ p_2& q_2\end{array}\right)`$ for the decomposition $`^n=\text{Im}(p)\text{Im}(1p)`$. Then, for a= $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)`$ we obtain

$$\{p,a\}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& b_1\\ b_2& 0\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}p_2& p_1q_2\\ 0& p_2\end{array}\right)p_2=0$$

Similarly, for $`a=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)`$ we obtain

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& b_1\\ b_2& 0\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}q_1& 0\\ q_2p_1& q_1\end{array}\right)q_1=0$$

So, we have $`ham(p)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}p_1& 0\\ 0& q_2\end{array}\right)`$. Then, for any $`a=\left(\begin{array}{cc}x& 0\\ 0& y\end{array}\right)`$ we obtain

$$\{p,a\}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& b_1\\ b_2& 0\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}[p_1,x]& 0\\ 0& [q_2,y]\end{array}\right)[p_1,x]=[q_2,y]=0$$

which implies that $`p_1`$ and $`q_2`$ are just scalars, and $`ham(p)`$ is of the form

$$ham(p)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}k_1\mathrm{𝟏}& 0\\ 0& k_2\mathrm{𝟏}\end{array}\right),k_1,k_2$$

Rewrite the latter expression for $`ham(p)`$ in the form

$$ham(p)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}(k_1k_2)\mathrm{𝟏}& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{cc}k_2\mathrm{𝟏}& 0\\ 0& k_2\mathrm{𝟏}\end{array}\right)$$

As the matrix $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}k_2\mathrm{𝟏}& 0\\ 0& k_2\mathrm{𝟏}\end{array}\right)`$ is just a scalar: $`k_2\mathrm{𝟏}`$, it has no effect in the commutator. Hence we can conclude that the hamiltonian mapping on the subset of projectors is of the form

$$ham(p)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}f(p)\mathrm{𝟏}& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)=f(p)p$$

where $`f`$ is a complex-valued function on the subset of projectors in $`M_n()`$. From this easily follows that if two projectors $`p`$ and $`q`$ does not commute then the equality $`\{p,q\}=[ham(p),q]=[ham(q),p]`$ implies that $`f(p)=f(q)`$. Now consider the set of elementary matrices: $`E_{ij}M_n(),\{i,j\}\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$, which forms a basis for $`M_n()`$. Construct the following set of projectors: $`\{i,j\}\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$

$$P_{ij}=\{\begin{array}{cc}E_{ij}+E_{jj}\hfill & \text{if }ij,\hfill \\ E_{ii}\hfill & \text{if }i=j.\hfill \end{array}$$

It is clear that the set $`\left\{P_{ij}\right\}`$ is also a basis of the vector space $`M_n()`$. For any $`ij`$ we have the following commutation relations: $`[P_{ij},P_{jj}]=E_{ij}0`$ and $`[P_{ij},P_{ii}]=E_{ij}0`$. Therefore for any two $`P_{mk}`$ and $`P_{kl}`$, where $`mk`$ and $`kl`$, we have $`P_{kk}`$, which does not commute with both of them. This implies that $`f(P_{mk})=f(P_{kk})=f(P_{kj})`$. by using a serie of such equalities, we can obtain that $`f(P_{ij})=\text{const}k,\{i,j\}\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$. As $`\left\{P_{ij}\right\}`$ forms a basis of $`M_n()`$ and $`ham`$ is a linear map, we obtain that $`ham(T)=kT,TM_n()`$.
Hence we can conclude that *the family of Poisson structures on the algebra of matrices $`M_n()`$ is parametrized by $``$ and each Poisson bracket is of the form $`\{S,T\}_k=k[S,T],k`$*. ∎

As in the section 3, let $`End(E)`$ be the endomorphism algebra of a finitedimensional complex or real vector bundle $`\pi :EM`$. As in the case of the matrix algebra, we denote by $`ad(\mathrm{\Phi }),\mathrm{\Phi }End(E)`$ the Hamiltonian derivations for the Poisson bracket defined by the multiplicative commutator. In this case the $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$-module generated by the Hamiltonian derivations is not the entire $`Der(End(E))`$, because a derivation of the type $`D_X,X𝔉(M)`$ (see the formula 3), defined by using of some connection on $`E`$, is not Hamiltonian. This follows from the fact that for any hamiltonian derivation $`ham(\mathrm{\Phi })=[\mathrm{\Phi },]`$ and an endomorphism of $`f\mathrm{𝟏},fC^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$, we have the following

$$ham(\mathrm{\Phi })(f\mathrm{𝟏})=0\text{ and }D_X(f\mathrm{𝟏})=X(f)\mathrm{𝟏}$$

Moreover, there are proper Poisson ideals in the Poisson algebra $`(End(E),[,])`$. Such ideal can be constructed by a proper subset $`SM`$, for example when $`S`$ consists of only one point.

###### Lemma 8.

For any point $`x_0M`$, the ideal $`I_{x_0}(End(E))=I_{x_0}End(E)`$ in the algbra $`End(E)`$, generated by $`I_{x_0}=\left\{fC^{\mathrm{}}(M)|f(x_0)=0\right\}`$ is a locally proper Poisson ideal in $`End(E)`$.

###### Proof.

The inclusion $`\{I_{x_0}(End(E)),End(E)\}I_{x_0}(End(E))`$ easily follows from the definition of the ideal $`I_{x_0}(End(E))`$. Now, let us verify that there exists such derivation $`UDer(End(E))`$ that $`U(I_{x_0}(End(E)))I_{x_0}(End(E))`$. Let $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ is such that $`f(x_0)=0`$ and for some tangent vector $`vT_{x_0}(M)`$: $`f^{}(x_0)v0`$. Choose such $`\mathrm{\Phi }End(E)`$ that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x_0)0`$. It is clear that $`f\mathrm{\Phi }I_{x_0}(End(E))`$. Let $`X`$ be such vector field on $`M`$ that $`X(x_0)=v`$. For some connection on $`E`$ consider the derivation $`D_X:End(E)End(E)`$. For these data we have the following

$$D_X(f\mathrm{\Phi })=X(f)\mathrm{\Phi }+fD_X(\mathrm{\Phi })$$

which implies that $`D_X(f\mathrm{\Phi })_{x_0}0`$ and therefore $`D_X(f\mathrm{\Phi })I_{x_0}(End(E))`$. ∎

In the case when we have a compact, closed submanifold $`NM`$, the ideal $`I_N(End(E))=I_NEnd(E)`$ is a submanifold ideal (see 3). At the same time, the quotient $`End(E)/(I_NEnd(E))End(E_N)`$ is a Poisson algebra under the bracket induced from $`End(E)`$. This situation can be considered as a noncommutative Poisson submanifold in a Poisson manifold. When $`N=x_0`$ is a Point, the corresponding ideal $`I_{x_0}(End(E))`$ is maximal and the quotient $`End(E)/(I_{x_0}End(E))End(E_{x_0})`$ is a nondegenerate Poisson algebra with the bracket induced from $`End(E)`$, and can be regarded as a noncommutative analogue of a symplectic leaf of a Poisson structure.

Before we start the description of the family of Poisson structures on the endomorphism algebra let us concern some general facts about Poisson algebras.

Let $`(A,\{,\})`$ be a Poisson algebra. As the center of the algebra $`A`$ is invariant for any derivation, and the bracket $`\{,\}`$ is a biderivation, we have that the center of $`A`$ is a Lie algebra ideal for the Poisson bracket: $`\{Z(A),A\}Z(A)`$.

###### Lemma 9.

Let $`Comm(A)`$ be the minimal subalgebra of the associative algebra $`A`$ containing the commutator $`[A,A]=\left\{[a,b]=abba|a,bA\right\}`$ (in fact $`Comm(A)`$ is the set of finite sums of the elements of the type $`\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}[a_i,b_i]`$). For any Poisson structure on $`A`$, the Poisson bracket of the elements of the center of $`A`$ with the elements of $`Comm(A)`$ is equal to $`0`$: $`\{Z(A),Comm(A)\}=\left\{0\right\}`$.

###### Proof.

Because of the Leibniz rule it is sufficient to verify the statement of the lemma for the elements of the type $`[a,b],a,bA`$. For any $`zZ(A)`$ we have the following

$$\{z,[a,b]\}=\{z,ab\}\{z,ba\}=a\underset{Z(A)}{\underset{}{\{z,b\}}}+\underset{Z(A)}{\underset{}{\{z,a\}}}bb\underset{Z(A)}{\underset{}{\{z,a\}}}\underset{Z(A)}{\underset{}{\{z,b\}}}a=0$$

###### Corollary 1.

If $`Comm(A)=A`$ then the multiplicative center $`Z(A)`$ is also in the center of the Lie algebra corresponding to the Poisson bracket.

###### Proposition 10.

If $`Comm(A)=A`$ and every derivation $`XDer(A)`$ such that $`X(Z(A))=0`$, is inner derivation, then any Poisson structure on $`A`$ is defined by a linear mapping $`f:AA/Z(A)`$ via the equality $`\{a,b\}=[f(a),b],a,bA`$; and the mapping $`f`$ is $`Z(A)`$-linear.

###### Proof.

As it follows from the previous corollary, if $`Comm(A)=A`$, we have that for any $`aA`$

$$\{a,Z(a)\}=\{0\}ham(a)Z(A)=\{0\}ham(a)Int(A)A/Z(A)$$

In fact, in this case the map $`f:AA/Z(A)`$ is the Hamiltonian map.

For $`zZ(A)`$ and $`aA`$, we have

$$\begin{array}{c}[f(za),x]=[za,f(x)]=z[a,f(x)]=z[f(a),x]=[zf(a),x]\hfill \\ \\ [f(za)zf(a),x]=0,xAf(za)zf(a)Z(A)\hfill \\ \\ [f(za)]=[zf(a)]=z[f(a)]\text{ in the quotient }A/Z(A)\hfill \end{array}$$

which implies that $`f`$ is $`Z(A)`$-linear. ∎

The antisymmetric property and the Jacoby identity for $`\{,\}`$ gives the following properties of the mapping $`f`$: $`\{x,y,z\}A`$

1. $`[f(x),y]=[x,f(y)]`$
2. $`[f(x),[f(y),z]]+[f(y),[f(z),x]]+[f(z),[f(x),y]]=0`$
or equivaletly:
$`[[f(x),f(y)],z]+[[f(y),f(z)],x]+[[f(z),f(x)],y]=0`$
or using the previous property:
$`[[f^2(x),y],z]+[[f^2(y),z],x]+[[f^2(z),x],y]=0`$

Let us summarize by the following

###### Proposition 11.

Let $`A`$ be an associative algebra such that $`Comm(A)=A`$ and any derivation of $`A`$ which vanishes on the center of $`A`$ is inner. Then there is a one-to-one correspondence between the family of Poisson brackets on $`A`$ and the family of such mappings (Hamiltonians) $`f:AA/Z(A)`$ which satisfy the conditions

* $`f`$ is a homomorphism of $`Z(A)`$-modules
* $`[f(a),b]=[a,f(b)],a,bA`$
* $`[[f^2(a),b],c]+[[f^2(b),c],a]+[[f^2(c),a],b]=0,a,b,cA`$

It is clear that any mapping of the type $`f(x)=cx`$ for fixed $`cZ(A)`$ satisfies the above conditions.

Let us apply the above result to the case when $`A`$ is the endomorphism algebra of a finite- dimensional complex (or real) vector bundle $`\pi :EM`$. First, recall that any derivation of the algebra $`End(E)`$, which vanishes on the center $`Z(End(E))C^{\mathrm{}}(M)\mathrm{𝟏}`$, is inner. Then, for the matrix algebra $`M_n()`$, when $`n2`$, we have that $`Comm(M_n())=M_n()`$. This easily follows from the fact that any elementary matrix $`E_{ij}`$ is a commutator, when $`ij`$: $`E_{ij}=[E_{ij},E_{jj}]`$, and is a product of two commutators when $`i=j`$: $`E_{ii}=E_{ik}E_{ki}=[E_{ik},E_{kk}][E_{ki},E_{ii}]`$ for some $`ki`$. Therefore the same is true for the endomorphism algebra:

$$Comm(End(E))=End(E)\text{, when }dim(\pi ^1(x))2$$

After these, from the Proposition 11 follows that any Poisson bracket on $`End(E)`$ is of the form $`\{\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Psi }\}=[f(\mathrm{\Phi }),\mathrm{\Psi }]`$, where

$$f:End(E)End(E)/C^{\mathrm{}}(M)$$

is a homomorphism of $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$-modules. The module $`End(E)/C^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ is canonically isomorphic to the module of sections of the subbundle of $`End(E)`$ consisting of the traceless endomorphisms. As $`f`$ is a $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$-module homomorphism it is induced by by some homomorphism of vector bundles. Hence, $`f`$ is pointwise: $`f(\mathrm{\Phi })_x=f_x(\mathrm{\Phi }_x),xM`$. Therefore, it induces a Poisson structure on each fiber of the endomorphism bundle: $`\{\mathrm{\Phi }_x,\mathrm{\Psi }_x\}=\{\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Psi }\}_x=[f_x(\mathrm{\Phi }_x),\mathrm{\Psi }_x]`$. As it was shown, any Poisson bracket on the matrix algebra is of the form $`\{a,b\}=k[a,b],k`$, and any Hamiltonian is of the form $`f(a)=ka`$. Therefore, the mapping

$$f:End(E)End(E)/C^{\mathrm{}}(M)$$

is of the form $`f(\mathrm{\Phi })=\lambda [\mathrm{\Phi }]`$, where $`\lambda C^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$.

To summarize, we formulate the following (the full description of the family of Poisson structures on the endomorphism algebra of a vector bundle with $`dim(fiber)2`$)

###### Proposition 12.

Any Poisson bracket on the endomorphism algebra of a finite-dimensional complex (or real) vector bundle, with fiber the dimension of which is $`2`$, is of the form

$$\{\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Psi }\}_\lambda =\lambda [\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Psi }],\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Psi }End(E)$$

where $`\lambda C^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$.

Hence, the family of Poisson structures on the endomorphism algebra $`End(E)`$ is parametrized by $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$.

###### Corollary 2.

Any Poisson structure on the endomorphism algebra of a finite-dimensional complex (or real) vector bundle with $`dim(fiber)2`$ is degenerate.

If the fiber of a vector bundle is 1-dimensional, then the endomorphism algebra coincides with the commutative algebra of smooth functions on the base manifold, and the Poisson structures on this algebra are given by involutive bivector fields on the base manifold (see ).


text:
# Lorentz Violation and Spacetime Supersymmetry11footnote 1Presented at Coral Gables Conference: Short Distance Behavior of Fundamental Interactions, December 11-14, 2002, Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

## 1 Introduction

The understanding of spacetime symmetries has grown remarkably in the last century. The mass-momentum behavior is associated with the requirement that theories respect translation invariance, while the intrinsic spin and the existence of antiparticles are consequences of the Lorentz group. The theoretical discovery of supersymmetry is a major achievement of twentieth century physics, and it marked another expansion of our concept of spacetime symmetries. The advent of supersymmetry was followed by its application to gauge theories and the Standard Model and a local version (supergravity) that incorporates general relativity. This is a clear indication that supersymmetry and Lorentz invariance are closely linked. The introduction of fermionic generators that relate fermions and bosons resulted largely from motivations that were theoretical, but it is clear that supersymmetry has come to dominate particle physics phenomenology.

A large part of the history of physics and particle physics in particular involves the introduction of symmetries and the understanding of the spontaneous breaking of these symmetries. The longstanding point of view has been that spacetime symmetry is one of the most fundamental. The familiar symmetries regarding translations, angular momentum, and Lorentz boosts that constitute the Poincaré group are usually assumed to be unbroken symmetries. While there is great theoretical appeal for these symmetries to be unbroken, this issue is of course a question that can only be decided by experiment. In any case the amount of breaking of the Lorentz symmetry must be very small, if it is indeed nonzero, since it has so far escaped experimental detection. Supersymmetry, if it exists, comprises another part of the overall spacetime symmetry, and it is clearly broken. In fact, it must be broken badly compared to the scale at which we perform experiments, so much so that we have currently not detected any of the supersymmetric partners to the Standard Model particles. However, from a more theoretical point of view, the breaking of supersymmetry is also very small since the breaking scale is very much suppressed in comparison to the Planck scale (where the true nature of spacetime presumably emerges).

The Poincaré algebra involves the generator of translations ($`P_\mu `$) and the generator of rotations and Lorentz boosts $`M_{\mu \nu }`$ in the following way

$`[P_\mu ,P_\nu ]`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`[P_\mu ,M_{\rho \sigma }]`$ $`=`$ $`i(\eta _{\mu \rho }P_\sigma \eta _{\mu \sigma }P_\rho )`$
$`[M_{\mu \nu },M_{\rho \sigma }]`$ $`=`$ $`i(\eta _{\nu \rho }M_{\mu \sigma }\eta _{\nu \sigma }M_{\mu \rho }\eta _{\mu \rho }M_{\nu \sigma }+\eta _{\mu \sigma }M_{\nu \rho }),`$ (1)
Explicit terms can be added to a Lagrangian that violate the Poincaré algebra. If one wants to preserve energy-momentum conservation, then any Lorentz violation continues to respect the first of these equations. The set of terms which can be added to the Standard Model have been categorized Colladay and Kostelecky (1997, 1998) in an extended Lagrangian. These terms are thought to arise in a more fundamental theory like string theory Kostelecky and Samuel (1990); Kostelecky and Potting (1996) which is nonlocal, but in the context of the Standard Model extension they are viewed as phenomenological parameters.

Supersymmetry involves extending this algebra with a fermionic generator $`Q`$222The four-component notation for spinors makes the relationship with the Standard Model Lorentz-violating extension Colladay and Kostelecky (1997, 1998) transparent.,

$`[Q,P_\mu ]`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`\{Q,\overline{Q}\}`$ $`=`$ $`2\gamma ^\mu P_\mu .`$ (2)
This part of the algebra is not respected by supersymmetry breaking terms in a Lagrangian. The breaking is usually required to be soft meaning that quadratic divergences continue to be avoided even though supersymmetry is explicitly broken. It is well-known that, for the required terms to be soft, they must be superrenormalizable, and any nonrenormalizable terms are expected to be suppressed by powers of the Planck mass $`M_P^1`$ or some other cutoff scale associated with new physics. While motivated by more fundamental theories and arising from some mechanism of spontaneous breaking of supersymmetry presumably in some nonperturbative sector that is “hidden” by making it completely chargeless under the Standard Model gauge group. One can abandon any attempt to derive these supersymmetry breaking terms from a more fundamental theory, add them to a supersymmetric model in the most general way, and then view them in a purely phenomenological way.

For the purposes of this talk, when I say a theory is supersymmetric, I mean that the relevant Lagrangian respects some modified version of the transformations in Eq. (2) but that some portion of Poincaré transformations in Eq. (1) is not respected. Specifically, the models presented here involve violations associated with the Lorentz generator $`M_{\mu \nu }`$, so that one can say the models respect both supersymmetry and translation invariance. Previous discussion of the superPoincaré algebra has been with regard to its exact realization, or to cases where the subalgebra involving the fermionic generator $`Q`$ is broken.

This talk is based on work done with V. Alan Kostelecký Berger and Kostelecky (2002).

## 2 Lorentz-violating Wess-Zumino Model

The first four-dimensional supersymmetric field theory was written down by Wess and Zumino Wess and Zumino (1974a). A modest goal is to determine whether it is possible to have an unbroken supersymmetry even in the presence of broken Lorentz symmetry. Can terms that explicitly violate the Lorentz symmetry be added to the Wess-Zumino model that still preserve some version of the supersymmetry? This approach of adding explicit terms is in the same spirit as the Lorentz-violating Standard Model extension in which Lorentz violation is added to the Standard Model333Local field theories that are derived from underlying nonlocal theories have well-known problems with causality and positivity. These problems can emerge at a high-energy scale determined by the Planck mass Kostelecky and Lehnert (2001). The correct point of view is to regard these field theories as effective theories, and the inconsistencies will be reconciled when the full underlying fundamental theory is taken into account. In fact such arguments can be used to establish upper bounds on the size of the Lorentz violation.. Consider the following Lagrangian,

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu A^\mu A+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu B^\mu B+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}i\overline{\psi }\text{/}\psi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G^2`$ (3)
$`+m\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\psi }\psi +AF+BG\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(F(A^2B^2)+2GAB\overline{\psi }(Ai\gamma _5B)\psi \right)`$
$`+k_{\mu \nu }^\mu A^\nu A+k_{\mu \nu }^\mu B^\nu B+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ik_{\mu \nu }\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu ^\nu \psi `$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}k_{\mu \nu }k_\rho ^\mu (^\nu A^\rho A+^\nu B^\rho B),`$
where one recognizes the first three lines as the original Wess-Zumino model. The last two lines involve the Lorentz-violating coefficients $`k_{\mu \nu }`$ either linearly or quadratically. These couplings are simply numbers (with Lorentz index labels) that do not change under a particle Lorentz transformation, which boosts or rotates local field configurations within a fixed inertial frame. Since there are an even number of indices these terms do not violate the CPT invariance. Without loss of generality, $`k_{\mu \nu }`$ can be taken to be a real symmetric, traceless, coefficient.

Since the supersymmetric transformation relates fermions to bosons, there is a nontrivial relationship between the coupling coefficients involving the scalars and the fermion. The supersymmetric transformation forces a relationship (namely the common $`k_{\mu \nu }`$) on the Lorentz-violating terms of Eq. (3) that is similar to the common mass and couplings that are a well-known consequence of supersymmetric theories.

If one modifies the supersymmetric transformations of the Wess-Zumino model by adding new terms involving the coefficients $`k_{\mu \nu }`$ coefficients,

$`\delta A`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{ϵ}\psi ,`$
$`\delta B`$ $`=`$ $`i\overline{ϵ}\gamma _5\psi ,`$
$`\delta \psi `$ $`=`$ $`(i\text{/}+ik_{\mu \nu }\gamma ^\mu ^\nu )(A+i\gamma _5B)ϵ+(F+i\gamma _5G)ϵ,`$
$`\delta F`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{ϵ}(i\text{/}+ik_{\mu \nu }\gamma ^\mu ^\nu )\psi ,`$
$`\delta G`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{ϵ}(\gamma _5\text{/}+k_{\mu \nu }\gamma _5\gamma ^\mu ^\nu )\psi ,`$ (4)
one finds that the Lagrangian is invariant up to a total derivative.

The commutator of two supersymmetry transformations in Eq. (4) yields

$`[\delta _1,\delta _2]=2i\overline{ϵ}_1\gamma ^\mu ϵ_2_\mu +2ik_{\mu \nu }\overline{ϵ}_1\gamma ^\mu ϵ_2^\nu ,`$ (5)
which involves the generator of translations. A modified supersymmetry algebra therefore exists, and the lagrangian in Eq. (3) provides an explicit example of an interacting model with both exact supersymmetry and Lorentz violation..

One can also show that a modification of the supersymmetry transformation in Eq. (4) cannot be modified, say by changing the transformation of the scalar fields $`A`$ and $`B`$, because any such modification would not result in a closure of the supersymmetry algebra. In fact, one can understand the modification of the Lagrangian and the supersymmetric transformations as a global substitution of the form $`i_\mu i_\mu +ik_{\mu \nu }^\nu `$. The translation generator $`P_\mu `$ commutes with itself (first equation in Eq. (1)) and satisfies the first equation in Eq. (2), so it then follows that

$`[Q,P^2]=0.`$ (6)
Since the superpotential containing the mass and coupling terms is unaffected by the Lorentz violation, analogues should exist for various conventional results on supersymmetry breaking Wess and Zumino (1974b); O’Raifeartaigh (1975); Witten (1981).

One consequence of the supersymmetric Lagrangian is the relationship between the fermionic and scalar propagators. The fermionic propagator is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{p_\mu (\gamma ^\mu +k_{\mu \nu }\gamma ^\nu )m}}.`$ (7)
Rationalizing this propagator by multiplying by $`p_\mu (\gamma ^\mu +k_{\mu \nu }\gamma ^\nu )+m`$, one gets the denominator

$`p^2+p^\mu p^\rho (k_{\mu \nu }\gamma ^\nu \gamma _\rho +k_{\rho \sigma }\gamma _\mu \gamma ^\sigma )`$
$`+k_{\mu \nu }k_{\rho \sigma }p^\mu p^\rho \gamma ^\nu \gamma ^\sigma m^2.`$ (8)
For $`k_{\mu \nu }`$ symmetric, the second term is $`2k_{\mu \nu }p^\mu p^\nu `$, and the third term is $`k_{\mu \nu }k_\rho ^\mu p^\nu p^\rho `$. Consequently the scalar and fermion, which are related by supersymmetry, have propagators with the same structure.

One might try to eliminate the Lorentz violation by a choice of coordinates such that $`x^\mu x^\mu +k^{\mu \nu }x_\nu `$. However, the metric would then no longer have the usual Minkowski form, and the Lorentz violation is simply moved into the new metric. The Lorentz violation of the theory is physical.

## 3 CPT-Odd Lorentz Breaking

It is well-known that a local Lorentz-invariant quantum field theory preserves the combination $`CPT`$ where $`C`$ is charge conjugation, $`P`$ is parity, and $`T`$ is time reversal. If Lorentz-violating terms are added to the Lagrangian, however, then this result no longer needs to hold and nonlocality as well as CPT violation is permitted.

A $`CPT`$-violating term can be added to the Wess-Zumino model in the following way,

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu A^\mu A+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu B^\mu B+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}i\overline{\psi }\text{/}\psi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G^2`$ (9)
$`+k_\mu (A^\mu BB^\mu A){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}k_\mu \overline{\psi }\gamma _5\gamma ^\mu \psi `$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}k^2(A^2+B^2).`$
The coefficient $`k_\mu `$ has mass dimension one, and a unique supersymmetry transformation can be established on dimensional grounds to be

$`\delta A`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{ϵ}\psi ,`$
$`\delta B`$ $`=`$ $`i\overline{ϵ}\gamma _5\psi ,`$
$`\delta \psi `$ $`=`$ $`(i\text{/}+\gamma _5k\text{/})(A+i\gamma _5B)ϵ+(F+i\gamma _5G)ϵ,`$
$`\delta F`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{ϵ}(i\text{/}\gamma _5k\text{/})\psi ,`$
$`\delta G`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{ϵ}(\gamma _5\text{/}+ik\text{/})\psi ,`$ (10)
and the Lagrangian again transforms into a total derivative.

The Lagrangian can be derived from the original Wess-Zumino model by applying a field redefinition,

$`\psi e^{i\gamma _5kx}\psi `$
$`A\pm iBe^{\pm ikx}(A\pm iB).`$ (11)
The terms involving the coupling $`k_\mu `$ respect $`C`$ and $`T`$ but violate $`P`$, giving an overall $`CPT`$ violation. Since parity is violated by the terms involving $`k_\mu `$ (both in the Lagrangian and in the transformations) one obtains a supersymmetric transformation that acts differently on the left- and right-handed states,

$`\delta \psi _L=(i\text{/}+k\text{/})(A+iB)ϵ_R+(FiG)ϵ_L,`$
$`\delta \psi _R=(i\text{/}k\text{/})(AiB)ϵ_L+(F+iG)ϵ_R,`$ (12)
where the chiral components are defined as usual: $`\psi _i=P_i\psi `$, $`ϵ_i=P_iϵ`$, $`P_{L/R}=(1\gamma _5)/2`$.

The mass and coupling terms in Eq. (3) are not supersymmetric. The parity-odd mass and coupling terms are also not consistent with supersymmetry. For example, the parity-violating mass term

$`m\left(i\overline{\psi }\gamma _5\psi +2AG2BF\right),`$ (13)
cannot be added to the Wess-Zumino theory because it is not invariant under the modified supersymmetry transformations in Eq. (10). It is not surprising that they cannot be reconciled with supersymmetry since the mass and coupling terms do not respect the field redefinition.

In addition to the $`k_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`k_\mu `$-dependent terms described above, the simple field content of the Wess-Zumino model admits additional renormalizable Lorentz-violating term to its Lagrangian: $`(A^2B\pm B^2A)`$, $`\varphi \overline{\psi }\gamma _5\gamma ^\mu \psi `$, and $`\overline{\psi }\sigma ^{\mu \nu }^\lambda \psi `$. However, there do not appear to be supersymmetric interpretations for these terms.

## 4 Superfield Formulation

The elegant method of superspace Salam and Strathdee (1974) allows one to combine all the component fields of a supersymmetric multiplet into one superfield. By extending the four dimensions of spacetime to include fermionic dimensions as well, this technique highlights the role of supersymmetry as a spacetime symmetry. The fermionic coordinates, $`\theta `$, that are added to the usual spacetime coordinates highlight the role of supersymmetry as a spacetime symmetry. The CPT transformation maps the components of a chiral superfield $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ into themselves, while the parity transformation alone maps left-chiral superfields into right-chiral superfields and vice versa. Define

$`\varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(A+iB),={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(FiG).`$ (14)
In terms of these complex scalars, the left-chiral superfield appropriate for the model in Eq. (3) is

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi (x)+\sqrt{2}\overline{\theta }\psi _L(x)+\frac{1}{2}\overline{\theta }(1\gamma _5)\theta (x)`$ (15)
$`+\frac{1}{2}i\overline{\theta }\gamma _5\gamma ^\mu \theta (_\mu +k_{\mu \nu }^\nu )\varphi (x)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}\overline{\theta }\theta \overline{\theta }(\text{/}+k_{\mu \nu }\gamma ^\mu ^\nu )\psi _L(x)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(\overline{\theta }\theta )^2(_\mu +k_{\mu \nu }^\nu )^2\varphi (x).`$
Here, the subscript $`L`$ denotes projection with $`\frac{1}{2}(1\gamma _5)`$. The lagrangian in Eq. (3) can then be expressed as

$`=\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }|_D+(\frac{1}{2}m\mathrm{\Phi }^2|_F+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}g\mathrm{\Phi }^3|_F+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.),`$ (16)
where the symbols $`|_D`$ and $`|_F`$ refer to projections onto the $`D`$\- and $`F`$-type components of the (holomorphic) functions of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,\theta )`$. The theory can therefore be represented as an action in superspace.

A supersymmetry transformation on $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,\theta )`$ generated as $`\delta _Q\mathrm{\Phi }(x,\theta )=i\overline{ϵ}Q\mathrm{\Phi }(x,\theta )`$ where

$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`i_{\overline{\theta }}\gamma ^\mu \theta _\mu k_{\mu \nu }\gamma ^\mu \theta ^\nu .`$ (17)
It is easy to check that the application of the supersymmetry transformation to the resulting chiral superfield yields the transformation given in Eq. (4), and that the supersymmetry algebra closes. The superpotential is not modified and gives rise to the mass and coupling terms in Eq. (3) in the usual way by projecting out the usual $`F`$-term component of the holomorphic functions of the chiral superfield $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. The generators $`Q`$ and $`P_\mu =i_\mu `$ satisfy

$`[Q,P_\mu ]=0,\{Q,\overline{Q}\}=2\gamma ^\mu P_\mu +2k_{\mu \nu }\gamma ^\mu P^\nu ,`$ (18)
which represents a new superalgebra explicitly containing the Lorentz violation parameter $`k_{\mu \nu }`$.

## 5 Conclusions

Lorentz-violating extensions of the Wess-Zumino model have been found that remain exactly supersymmetric. Nontrivial relationships exist between terms in the Lagrangian involving scalars and terms involving fermions reminiscent of the common masses and couplings in other supersymmetric theories. The supersymmetry algebra closes in a modified way and the momentum generator continues to generate translations. Therefore a representation of supersymmetry has been found that does not respect the Lorentz invariance of the superPoincaré algebra. Many of the appealing features of supersymmetry are preserved even if Lorentz violation is allowed. One might extend the considerations discussed here to other representations of supersymmetry. For example the vector superfield should have a straightforward generalization to include Lorentz violation. One could then conceive of phenomenological models (like supersymmetric QED or the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model) that include explicit terms that break supersymmetry, Lorentz invariance, or both.

The Lorentz symmetry has long been viewed by many as one which is unlikely to be broken. However, one should be wary of arguments that say since a dimensionless number is constrained to be very small, it must be exactly zero. The prominent recent example is the observed size of a “cosmological constant” compared to known particle physics scales. Furthermore large hierarchies exist between observed physical scales in particle physics: there is a large gap of at least six orders of magnitude between the electron mass and the heaviest neutrino, so we can confidently say that a “desert” unpopulated by massive states has already been confirmed experimentally. Whether Lorentz violation exists and is characterized by very small dimensionless numbers or ratios is a question that can ultimately only be decided by experiment.

I would like to thank my collaborator V. Alan Kostelecký. This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG02-91ER40661.


text:
# Field-Induced Quantum Critical Point in CeCoIn5

Permanent address: \] Inst. Surface Chemistry, N.A.S. Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine. Current address: \] Département de physique, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada, J1K 2R1. Current address: \] Department of Physics, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York, 11973.

## Abstract

The resistivity of the heavy-fermion superconductor CeCoIn5 was measured as a function of temperature, down to 25 mK and in magnetic fields of up to 16 T applied perpendicular to the basal plane. With increasing field, we observe a suppression of the non-Fermi liquid behavior, $`\rho T`$, and the development of a Fermi liquid state, with its characteristic $`\rho =\rho _0+AT^2`$ dependence. The field dependence of the $`T^2`$ coefficient shows critical behavior with an exponent of 1.37. This is evidence for a field-induced quantum critical point (QCP), occuring at a critical field which coincides, within experimental accuracy, with the superconducting critical field $`H_{c2}`$. We discuss the relation of this field-tuned QCP to a change in the magnetic state, seen as a change in magnetoresistance from positive to negative, at a crossover line that has a common border with the superconducting region below $`1`$ K.

The recent discovery of a new family of heavy-fermion superconductors with the general formula CeMIn5 (M=Co, Ir, Rh or their solid solutions) has generated much interest. The ground state of these compounds can be fine-tuned between magnetic order, superconductivity, and a coexistence of the two by varying both pressure and alloy composition alloy . CeCoIn5, with the highest ambient pressure superconducting transition temperature $`T_c`$ of all heavy-fermion compounds discovered to date Cedomir , is believed to be close to a point where the magnetic state becomes unstable as $`T0`$ Nicklas ; Shishido ; Sidorov . This proximity to a quantum critical point (QCP) is believed to be responsible for the unusual properties observed in the superconducting Movshovich ; Kohori ; Curro ; Izawa ; penetration  and normal Sarrao-review  states.

The peculiar magnetic properties of CeCoIn5 are determined by the magnetic moments of Ce3+ ions and by conduction electrons. Through systematic studies of Ce1-xLaxCoIn5 alloys, where the dilution of magnetic Ce ions by La (non-magnetic analog) allows one to study the nature of intersite interactions, it has been shown that the energy scales associated with the relevant magnetic interactions are all well separated, and that the dominance of direct intersite interactions below the coherence peak temperature $`T_{coh}`$50 K gives rise to pronounced two-dimensional antiferromagnetic (AF) correlations Nakatsuji . Although long-range magnetic order is not present in CeCoIn5 uSR , the close proximity of this system to AF order Kohori  results in an abundance of spin fluctuations which lead to behavior that is notably different from that expected in the Fermi liquid (FL) model.

In addition to the observation of $`T`$linear resistivity Cedomir  commonly associated with quantum criticality, non-Fermi liquid (NFL) behavior manifests itself in CeCoIn5 in a number of ways. These include a logarithmic increase of the electronic specific heat coefficient on cooling specificheat , an enhancement of the effective mass at low temperatures and its strong field dependence, as seen in de Haas-van Alphen dHvA  and microwave conductivity Ozcan  experiments, and a magnetic susceptibility that does not saturate at low temperatures Cedomir .

The close proximity of CeCoIn5 to an AF QCP at ambient pressure offers a unique opportunity to explore quantum critical phenomena in a system free of disorder due to alloying. Since magnetic fluctuations play an essential role in quantum criticality, the response of this system to applied magnetic fields is of clear interest. We have performed a systematic study of the low temperature electrical resistivity of CeCoIn5 in magnetic fields up to 16 T. We find that this system can indeed be driven through a QCP by a magnetic field, as evidenced by a divergence of the electron-electron scattering strength at the critical field and the subsequent restoration of a FL state. We show that magnetic interactions appear to play a key role in this critical behavior.

Single crystals of CeCoIn5 were grown by the self-flux method Cedomir . As-grown crystals have a thin platelet shape, with large surfaces corresponding to the (001) basal plane. For this study we have cut four samples into rectangular parallelepipeds with typical dimensions $`2\times 1\times 0.3`$ mm. Electrical contacts for standard four-wire measurements were made with soldered indium, resulting in $`5`$ m$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ contact resistances. The in-plane electrical resistivity, $`\rho `$, was measured with an AC resistance bridge by applying $`0.1`$ mA excitation currents along the basal plane, and transverse magnetic fields up to 16 T parallel to the  axis. Measurements were performed from 300 K to 0.3 K in a 3He cryostat, and down to 25 mK in a 3He/4He dilution refrigerator. The 16 T data were reproduced in reversed field direction, excluding any spurious Hall component.

On cooling from room temperature, the zero-field resistivity of CeCoIn5 shows a slight increase, followed by a crossover to metallic behavior below $`T_{coh}`$, as is seen in many heavy-fermion systems Stewart . Below $`10`$ K, $`\rho (T)`$ displays a linear temperature dependence down to $`T_c=2.3`$ K, as shown in Fig. 1a. Such $`T`$-linear behavior has been observed in many systems which lie at or close to a QCP Stewart ; QCP . Above 30 K, the magnetoresistance (MR) is negligibly small up to 16 T, whereas below 30 K a notable MR begins to develop as shown in Fig. 1b. The linear dependence of $`\rho (T)`$ observed at $`H=0`$ suffers a drastic change with increasing field, most pronounced at low temperatures. For instance, the 6 T curve (Fig. 1a) displays a notable deviation from linearity below $``$ 5 K and decreases on cooling to a value much lower than the residual resistivity inferred from a linear extrapolation of $`\rho (T,H`$=0) to $`T`$=0. By 16 T, the downturn in $`\rho (T)`$ shifts to much higher temperatures (Fig. 1a), as evidenced by the large negative MR below $``$ 5 K shown in Fig. 1b. At higher temperatures, the field dependence of $`\rho `$, plotted at constant $`T`$ values in Fig. 1c, reveals the development of a crossover in the sign of MR with increasing field and temperature, which will be discussed below.

A close analysis of our 6 T data at low temperatures reveals a narrow but clearly distinguishable range of $`T^2`$ behavior below $``$100 mK, highlighted in a plot of $`\rho `$ vs. $`T^2`$ in Fig. 2. This range gradually becomes wider and more apparent with increasing field, as shown by the linear fits fits  in the main panel of Fig. 2, and extends to as high as 2.5 K by $`H`$=16 T. Simultaneously, at the lowest measured temperatures, a small upturn in $`\rho (T)`$ starts to develop above 8 T and continues to grow upon further field increase. Since this effect is confined to very low temperatures and high fields, it does not hinder the observation of $`T^2`$ resistivity and is left for future study upturn .

The behavior of MR in CeCoIn5 can be compared to that observed in two closely related superconductors. In CeIrIn5, no significant MR has been observed between 50 mK and 5 K at ambient pressure Cedomir . In CeRhIn5, a large positive MR was observed Christianson  at ambient pressure, while under the critical pressure (where AF order is suppressed and superconductivity is dominant) the low temperature MR Muramatsu  bears a striking similarity to that observed in our study. The development of a $`T^2`$ dependence of resistivity was also seen in CeCoIn5 under applied pressure, where a jump in the exponent of $`T`$ from linear to quadratic occurs near 2 GPa Sidorov . From these comparisons, it would appear that the Co system at ambient pressure is close to quantum criticality in the same manner as the Rh system under critical pressure, while the Ir system is further from criticality at ambient pressure.

The slope of the fitted $`\rho `$ vs. $`T^2`$ curves (Fig.2), i.e. the coefficient $`A`$ of the $`T^2`$ term (in $`\rho =\rho _0+AT^2`$), is a measure of the strength of electron-electron interactions, notoriously high in heavy-fermion materials. As is clear from the fits in Fig. 2, $`A`$ tends to decrease with increasing field. The field dependence of $`A`$, or $`A(H)`$ (inset in Fig. 3), displays critical behavior best fitted by the function $`A(HH^{})^\alpha `$, with parameters $`H^{}=5.1\pm 0.2`$ T and $`\alpha =1.37\pm 0.1`$. In FL theory, the coefficient $`A`$ is roughly proportional to the square of the electronic contribution to the specific heat coefficient $`\gamma `$. Thus, the critical behavior of $`A(H)`$ would lead us to expect a divergence of $`\gamma (H)`$ somewhere close to $`H_{c2}`$. Experimental studies of the specific heat at fields slightly exceeding $`H_{c2}`$ indeed show an increase of $`\gamma (H)`$ specificheat , but unfortunately detailed data is lacking in the field range of interest to allow a direct comparison.

The field-induced recovery of a FL regime in CeCoIn5 exhibits a distinct similarity to the behavior observed in several other systems. In Sr3Ru2O7 and CeRu2Si2, a field-induced anomaly in resistivity is associated in both cases with a change from predominantly AF to ferromagnetic fluctuations Flouquet . In U0.9Th0.1Be13 Dickey , a system close to a superconducting phase, the evolution of $`A(H)`$ and $`T^2`$ resistivity with field both bear a close resemblance to that found in our study. In YbRh2Si2, critical behavior in $`A(H)`$ was observed in proximity to a field-induced QCP associated with a second-order AF transition, with an exponent $`\alpha =1`$ extracted from $`A(H)`$ that is similar to the value we obtain in CeCoIn5 Gegenwart .

All of the aforementioned systems exhibit critical behavior in resistivity when approaching some critical field value $`H^{}`$. However, what is unique (and intriguing) about CeCoIn5 is the fact that $`H^{}`$ is very close to $`H_{c2}(0)`$, which points to the existence of a QCP coincident with the superconducting transition at $`T=0`$. The question is whether this coincidence is essential or accidental. In the latter case, the critical behavior would originate from proximity to an ordered phase (and transition) other than the superconducting state (and in fact would be masked by superconductivity). In this respect it is interesting to mention the compelling evidence from magnetization Murphy ; Tayama , specific heat firstorder , and thermal conductivity Izawa  that the $`H_{c2}`$ transition in CeCoIn5 is first-order below $`0.7`$ K for all field orientations. This suggests that critical behavior of the kind observed here, which is usually associated with a second-order phase transition brought to absolute zero, is not caused by the vicinity of the superconducting state itself. Rather, it is tempting to propose that the quantum critical behavior observed in CeCoIn5 is associated with a zero-temperature transition of magnetic origin, much as the field-induced transition from an AF state to a field-aligned state in YbRh2Si2.

In connection to this, note that there is a pronounced crossover from positive to negative MR that occurs at high temperatures with increasing field. It is clear that the shape of the $`\rho (H)`$ curves is notably different from that expected for weak-field orbital MR ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho H^2`$), while at high fields the MR becomes negative. Both of these facts encourage us to consider an unconventional magnetic origin to the observed MR behavior. This conclusion is natural, taking into account the connection commonly made between zero-field $`T`$-linear resistivity and AF spin fluctuations Stewart ; rho\_fluct . In this scenario, the initial increase of $`\rho `$ with field could originate from an increase of spin disorder. Although positive MR is unexpected in Kondo systems H\_Kondo , an increase of MR with field is indeed observed in systems with AF order Gegenwart ; Christianson , and in systems approaching a coherent state HF\_posMR . In CeCoIn5, there is no evidence for long-range AF order in zero external field. However, notable AF correlations are observed below $`T_{coh}`$, and therefore it is natural to associate the increase of spin disorder with a suppression of AF correlations. Clearly, the polarization of spins by increasing field strength should eventually lead to a field-aligned state, as was observed in the case of YbRh2Si2 Gegenwart . Therefore, a crossover to negative MR should occur at progressively increasing fields at higher temperatures, which is indeed observed in our experiment.

Based on our experimentally determined ranges of $`T^2`$ behavior at low temperatures, and on the crossover observed in the sign of MR at high temperatures, we have constructed a phase diagram of the $`HT`$ plane (Fig.3). It is apparent that the MR crossover line approaches the $`H_{c2}`$ transition at a finite temperature, so that below $`1`$ K the domain of negative MR is directly adjacent to the superconducting domain. Surprisingly, this diagram strongly resembles that determined by torque magnetometry Murphy  for $`H[110]`$, where the jump in torque associated with the first-order $`H_{c2}`$ transition below $`1.4`$ K was traced well into the normal state (up to $``$25 K), indicative of a metamagnetic transformation. Although no such anomaly was found above $`T_c`$ for $`H[100]`$ or $`H[001]`$, and subsequent magnetization measurements did not reproduce this result Tayama , the sensitivity of torque measurements may highlight the importance of the $`H[110]`$ orientation. The similar behavior observed in both MR and torque measurements further suggests the possible existence of a magnetic order parameter, where the direct observation of a transition may be complicated by the emergence of superconductivity.

In conclusion, we have identified the anomalous low-temperature evolution of magnetoresistance in CeCoIn5 with the field-induced development of a Fermi liquid regime. This evolution and the critical nature of the electron-electron scattering coefficient thus derived both bear close resemblance to other systems governed by quantum criticality. The crossover from positive to negative magnetoresistance, which extends to high temperatures, is indicative of a change in character of spin fluctuations with increasing field strength, and may be closely tied to the critical behavior observed in the resistivity, hinting at a quantum critical point of a magnetic nature, masked by superconductivity.

This work was supported by the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research and funded by NSERC. The authors gratefully acknowledge useful discussions with J. Hopkinson, Y. B. Kim, J. L. Sarrao, and I. Vekhter.

Note added.- Recent specific heat measurements by Bianchi et al. Bianchi  support our main conclusion regarding the existence of a field-induced QCP.